Sitting of 16 August 1894

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  VON ROEMER'S RESUMPTION OF BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL [Lords] (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    SIR A. ROLLITsaid, he did not rise to object to the Second Reading of the Bill, but to express the opinion that some steps should be taken to alter the law so that parties would not be exposed to the great cost of Private Naturalisation Bills, and the time of Parliament would not be wasted on them. The Naturalisation Act of 1870 provided for naturalisation in the case of married women and widows, but did not take cognisance of such cases as that arising under this particular Bill—namely, the case of a person who had been divorced. Though there might be some doubt in the case—though it might be held in certain quarters that the Act applied to such a case—there was certainly an omission in the Act which should be repaired by general legislation. That would have the effect of preventing these purely private matters from being brought forward in the House.
    MR. DODDsaid, he would ask the Home Secretary what was the reason for the Bill? They were entitled to some explanation, seeing that the Naturalisation Act of 1870 was passed to put the law on this subject on a sound and intelligible footing. He believed

    1217
    that the last time a question of naturalisation was before the House the then Home Secretary said that the Bill must be regarded entirely as an exceptional matter. He was not prepared to say that the right hon. Gentleman had declared that there never should be a Private Bill of this nature again, but that there should not be one except in a very special case. The lady in this case was entitled to the sympathy of the House. It appeared that she was born an English subject in Lambeth, in the County of Surrey; that she married a Baron Von Roomer; that by reason of his misconduct she was compelled to divorce him; that she then married another German gentleman, and by reason of his misconduct was obliged to divorce him also. Under the circumstances, no one could wonder that the lady desired to resume her nationality, and to cease to belong to the nationality of either of her husbands. He should like to know why it was necessary to have special legislation to meet the case, and why the Act of 1870 had failed?
    MR COURTNEYsaid, that some lour years ago he had called attention to the Naturalisation Law, and had expressed considerable doubt as to whether these Bills ought to be sanctioned by Parliament. By the Act of 1870 procedure was laid down for acquiring English nationality, or resuming it, and it was open to grave doubt whether these Private Bills should be allowed. By their means parties obtained naturalisation much more easily than they could under the ordinary law. The Home Secretary of that day came to the conclusion that Private Bills should be allowed where they were for the public interest, but that so far as they were desired to suit private convenience they should be no longer allowed. Therefore, when ho (Mr. Courtney) had seen this Bill in the Order Paper on Monday he had taken the liberty of getting it postponed so that it should be taken by Order. It appeared that the circumstances of this case were peculiar. The lady concerned was born in London of British parents. She married in Stuttgart, Würtemberg, a German gentleman, whom she had to divorce, and subsequently she married another German gentleman in Bavaria, whom she also divorced. She had been discharged from
    1218
    her nationality in Würtemburg on condition that she made her domicile in some country outside the German Empire. There was some doubt as to whether she could not resume her British nationality under the Act of 1870, but the highest authorities thought that the Act did not apply to divorced women. It made no reference to such cases, though married women and widows were referred to. The present Bill, however, would immediately on its passing into law confer all the rights and privileges of British nationality; while the Act of 1870 made the resumption conditional on a residence of five years, and on satisfactory evidence being produced to the Home Secretary as to character. He did not think they should allow this acceleration to occur. They should treat this lady as if she had been a widow or a German spinster who desired to acquire English nationality. Under the peculiar circumstances, he thought the Bill might be allowed to pass, if it could be so amended in Committee as to make the conditions, of resumption similar to those in the Act of 1870. He admitted that if the case were admissible it ought to be provided for in the general law. But an amendment of the general law would be a long time coming, although he should like to see it effected in order to prevent the recurrence of Bills of this kind in the future.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I think the House is very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin for the steps he has taken in connection with this Bill. It certainly would be most undesirable that a Bill of this character should have been allowed to pass through this House without some notice being taken of the grounds upon which this lady asks for special legislation in relation to her case. As the Minister who is responsible for the administration of the general law of naturalisation, I desire to reiterate the expressions of opinion of my predecessors in Office to the effect that, inasmuch as Parliament has laid down a general scheme of law under which a person alien born can become naturalised, good grounds must be shown before the House can sanction any measure dealing exceptionally with any particular case. If it

    1219
    can be shown that this is a case which might have been dealt with under the ordinary law, I agree with my right hon. Friend that the House ought not to sanction the Second Reading of the Bill. The question, however, arises whether this particular case, which is, I believe, without precedent, and one not likely to occur again in the future, does come under the general law. I confess that I think it does, and that there is nothing in the 10th section of the Act of 1870 which ought to be regarded as cutting down the general terms of the 7th and 8th sections. But different opinions are maintained in other quarters which are entitled to the highest possible respect. It must, therefore, be conceded to be at least doubtful whether the lady, who is not a spinster, and yet is not a widow, can under the provisions of the general law resume her British nationality under the general conditions of the Act of 1870. The case of this lady, therefore, is one of hardship, and in default of the amendment of the general law—and the time of the House cannot now be occupied with the amendment of the general law—special legislation seemed the only way to get rid of this lady's hardship. Therefore, although I with some reluctance assent to the Second Reading, it must be clearly understood that a clause shall be inserted in Committee, providing that the Act shall not take effect unless and until the conditions prescribed by the Act of 1870 in relation to everybody else as to residence and otherwise are satisfied by this lady. I think it is most desirable that we should insist on a uniform law in relation to these matters, and that this antiquated and vicious system of proceeding by way of special legislation should never be tolerated unless in very exceptional cases.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. MELLOR, York, W.R.,)thought it would be very undesirable that this lady by special legislation should be placed in a more favourable position than if she were a widow, and should have any advantages not enjoyed by other persons. He entirely approved of the course suggested by the Home Secretary, and if a clause of the nature referred to were inserted he should offer no objection to the Bill.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a third time, and committed.
    Ordered, That Standing Orders 211 and 236 be suspended, and that the Committee have leave to sit and proceed forthwith.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
    Bill reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

    STANDING ORDERS.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. MELLOR)said, he begged to move the alterations in the Standing Orders down in his name on the Paper. The object was to secure that notice should be given to every person who was affected by any Bill brought in containing what was known as a Betterment Clause, or a clause affecting his land or property. These alterations would bring the Standing Orders of the House into comformity with those of the House of Lords.
    Standing Order 3 was read and amended in line 15 by inserting, after the word "privileges," the words "or to impose on any lands or houses, or to render any lands or houses liable to the imposition of any special charge in respect of any improvement."
    New Standing Order, to follow Standing Order 12:—
    (Notice to owners, &c., in case of improvement charge.)
    12A. Ordered, on or before the 15th day of December immediately preceding the application for a Bill by which any special charge is imposed upon any lands or houses, or any lands or houses are rendered liable to have a special charge imposed upon them in connection with any improvement, notice in writing shall be given to the owners or reputed owners, lessees or reputed lessees, and occupiers of all such lands and houses of such proposed special charge or liability.
    Ordered, That the said Order be a Standing Order of the House.
    Standing Order 24 was read and amended in line 5 by inserting, after the word "taken," the words "and in the case of all Bills by which any special charge is imposed upon any lands or houses, or any lands or houses are rendered liable to have a special charge imposed upon them in connection with any improvement."
    Standing Order 33 was read and amended in page 45, line 15, by inserting, after the word "Board," the words "or to which Standing Order 38 applies."
    Standing Order 46 was read and amended in line 4 by inserting, after the word "plan," the words "or upon which any special charge is imposed, or which are rendered liable to have a special charge imposed upon them in connection with any improvement."
    Standing Order 60A was read and amended in line 10 by inserting, after the word

    1221
    "Bridges," the words "and of every Bill to which Standing Order 3S applies."
    Standing Order 63 was read and amended:—
    In line 1, by leaving out the words "and empowering or requiring," and inserting the words "promoted by."
    In line 7, by inserting, after the word "applies," the words "or empowering or requiring any such company, society, association, or co-partnership, not being the Promoters of the Bill."
    Standing Order 166A was read and amended in line 6 by inserting, after the word "train." the words "exceeding 56 lbs. in weight."—{The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
    MR. BARTLEYasked if the alterations applied to the Standing Orders generally, or only for the Session?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Generally.
    MR. BARTLEYpointed out that, while the Government would not agree to the appointment of a Joint Committee of both Houses to inquire into the question of betterment, they were now accepting the recommendation of the Committee of the other House.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the alterations by the House of Lords Committee of the Standing Orders of the Lords were made after the Report of the Lords Committee.
    MR. J. STUARTsaid, lie hoped there would be no opposition to such a reasonable proposition. In the event of betterment proposals being made, it was desirable that due notice should be given to the persons concerned.

QUESTIONS.

  THE IMPORTATION OF GERMAN PRISON-MADE GOODS.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Report long since received by the Foreign Office from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin upon the importation of German prison-made goods to compete with free British labour is to be published, and brought to the knowledge of the operatives in the brush trade, the whip trade, and other industries suffering, in their opinion, from the illicit competition of foreign convicts; and if he has personally communicated with the commissioner of The Hardwareman journal despatched to inquire into this traffic,
  1222
  whose sworn testimony has been submitted to him, or done anything whatever in the matter?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE,): As I informed my hon. Friend in answer to a question of his towards the end of last month, the Report received from Her Majesty's Representative at Berlin regarding goods made in German prisons will be published as soon as the other Reports relating to the same subject, including that expected from France, have been received, and I hope that these further Reports will very soon arrive. As regards the second paragraph of the question, the inquiries made upon this subject have been made, as is always the case, through the Diplomatic Service of Her Majesty, that being the authorised channel for obtaining information from foreign countries, and no communications have been made to the Press or private agencies in the matter.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiry into this matter personally, or have the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Customs, seeing the great interest taken in it in all parts of the world, where British trade is found?
  MR. BRYCE: I do not think it proper that I should make any inquiry of that nature.

  FRAUDULENTLY-MARKED CHISELS.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether 6,000 cast steel Firmer chisels coming from Germany were recently seized by the Customs House at Leith, by reason of the word Sheffield being engraved thereon, and were subsequently sold by public auction under the Royal Arms and Cypher, thereby supplying the Leith and Edinburgh market with chisels for some time to come, and, in such a case, if he can state who were the exporters and the importers of these contraband goods, and what steps have been taken in respect of them; and what was the sum realised by this Government auction, and if it can be sent to the Mayor of Sheffield for distribution among the Societies succouring the unemployed in the edge tool and cutlery trade?
  MR. BRYCE: The Commissioners of Customs inform the Board of Trade

  1223
  that the chisels referred to—valued at £30—were imported from Hamburg to Leith in September last year. They were contained in packages bearing two labels with English wording, one qualified as to the foreign origin of the goods and the other not, but the chisels themselves were stamped "warranted east steel" without qualification, and were accordingly retained as a seizure, as is usual in the case of the importation of foreign-made hardware so marked. The goods were sold at the recent Customs sale at Leith, the illegal marks being first removed therefrom, and realised £25 4s. This account has been carried to the account of the Crown, and cannot be dealt with in any other manner. It is not the practice of the Commissioners of Customs to divulge the names of either the consignors or consignees, or to take any action beyond seizure.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Has any notice been taken of it with regard to the importers?
  MR. BRYCE: I am not aware of any action being taken. As I have informed the hon. Member, this is a matter for the Commissioners of Customs and not for the Board of Trade.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: But is not the administration of the Merchandise Marks Act under the Board of Trade, and was not the seizure effected under a clause of that Act?
  MR. BRYCE: No, Sir; the seizure was made by the Commissioners of Customs. It is for them to carry out this particular Act.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I will call attention to this matter on the Estimates?
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to initiate a prosecution under the Merchandise Marks Act?
  COMMANDER BETHELL(York, E. R., Holderness): Who is responsible for answering questions on this subject?
  MR. BRYCE: I am responsible. But these seizures were made by the Commissioners of Customs, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury has to answer questions for that body.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question.
  MR. BRYCE: I should think the hon. Member never expected an answer to it.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Yes, I did. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as he is responsible, he will see that a prosecution is instituted?
  MR. BRYCE: I have said that this matter does not relate entirely to the Board of Trade: it also affects the Commissioners of Customs, and I cannot answer questions in regard to it without consulting them.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Was any communication sent by the Commissioners of the seizure of falsely-marked chisels, and, if so, what action was taken upon it?
  MR. BRYCE: If my hon. and gallant I Friend likes to put down any further I question with regard to the different steps taken in this matter I will endeavour to obtain the information. But I must remind him that he is asking as to something which is not in the question on the Paper.

  BRITISH SOLDIERS AND THE PLAGUE AT HONG KONG.
  MR. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention, has been called to the voluntary and gallant services of the 1st Battalion Shropshire Light Infantry Regiment during the plague at Hong Kong; if no less than 400 soldiers were employed in the cleaning work in the plague-stricken parts of that town, and the removal of the refuse and filth from the dwellings owing to the natives refusing to work; if one of the officers of that regiment, Captain Vesey, and many of the soldiers were attacked by the plague, and the former succumbed to that terrible disease, sacrificing his life to save the rest of the inhabitants from the plague; and whether any steps have been taken, or are practical, to recognise the gallant services of the 1st Battalion Shropshire Light Infantry (late 58th Regiment) performed during the continuance of the plague in Hong Kong?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,)(who replied) said: The Secretary of State explained to the House on July 3 the circumstances which rendered necessary the use of troops in the manner

  1225
  referred to by the hon. Member. Eight officers and over 300 men of the Shropshire Light Infantry and detachments of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers volunteered to assist the Civil Authorities at Hong Kong in cleansing and disinfecting houses in which cases of plague had occurred. Of these volunteers one officer (Captain Vesey) and five men were attacked by the plague, and I regret to say that Captain Vesey and one of the men died. The Commander-in-Chief's appreciation of the gallant services of these men who volunteered for this duty has already been conveyed to the General Officer commanding. A copy of a Despatch has been received through the Colonial Office from the Governor of Hong Kong expressing his appreciation of the valuable assistance he has received in this crisis from the naval and military forces. I am sure that the House and the country generally will join in admiration of this fresh instance of the gallantry and devotion which always characterise Her Majesty's soldiers and sailors.

  THE TREATMENT OF FIEST OFFENDERS.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department if, having regard to the fact, that although 10,393 persons have been saved from prison under the provisions of the probation of the First Offenders Act between 1888 and 1893, in the six districts of the Metropolis, the West Riding, Lancashire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, and Durham, and that only 938, or less than 10 per cent., of these have been called upon to appear and receive judgment, or are known to have been subsequently convicted of a fresh offence, two Metropolitan Police Courts and several places have failed altogether to put the Act into operation, or to avail themselves of the powers conferred by the Summary Jurisdiction Act in a similar direction, IK; will consider the advisability of re-issuing the Circular of his predecessor, reminding Criminal Courts of the Statute, in the hope that they may utilise it, still further, and thereby save the country from the maintenance of many persons in prison, and at the same time reclaim considerable numbers to honest society?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I am anxious, with a view to mitigate the treatment of those who commit trifling offences, that Justices should fully avail themselves of both the Probation of First Offenders Act and the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, s. 16; and I am considering whether any further action should be taken by the Home Office for that purpose.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN THE EDENDERRY UNION.
  MR. KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what steps, if any, the Guardians of the Edenderry Union have taken to carry out the order for the erection of 22 labourers' cottages in their Union published by the Local Government Board on the 17th of February last, and confirmed by an Order in the Privy Council on the 22nd of June; and will he cause the Local Government Board to urge the Guardians to make contracts for the erection of those cottages before the winter sets in?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): I am informed that Unnecessary plans and schedules are now being prepared by the Guardians for deposit with the Board of Works, Clerk of Union, and Clerk of Peace. An Arbitrator will then be nominated by the Board of Works, and his appointment has to be advertised for three weeks, and a further period of not less than three weeks allowed to parties interested to make statements of claim. The Guardians have no power to enter on lauds until after the deposit of the Arbitrator's draft, award, and the Local Government Board could not, therefore, urge them to make contracts for the erection of cottages before that date. The Board add, they see no reason to anticipate any unnecessary delay on the part of the Guardians in their proceedings under the Order.

  DANGEROUS RIFLE RANGER.
  MR. WILSON LLOYD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the sad fatal accident at Tipton, to a child of Mr. Henn, who was killed

  1227
  by a stray bullet from the Dudley Rifle Range while standing at the door of his father's house; if he will state what measures will be adopted to prevent such accidents in the future at this range and other similar ranges in the country; and if the War Department will grant help to Mr. Henn to relieve him from the expense that has been inflicted upon him by this accident, amounting to £60, which is far beyond his power to pay?
  MR. WOODALL(who replied) said: The attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the very sad accident at Tipton to a child of a Mr. Henn, who was killed by a stray bullet from the Dudley Rifle Range while standing at the door of his father's house. To prevent such accidents in future, firing on this Volunteer range has been prohibited, a course which is always adopted when a range is found to be unsafe. With regard to the loss that has been inflicted on Mr. Henn, I can only repeat the answer given by the Secretary of State on the 18th of June on this subject—namely, that there does not seem to be any claim against the Government in this matter, whatever other claim there may be.
  MR. WILSON LLOYD: Arising out of that answer, is it not a fact that this range was complained of in the year 1892 by the inhabitants of the neighbourhood; that an inspection was made by order of the War Department and that it was pronounced safe? Have not the War Office thus made themselves liable to give some gratuity to this poor man to meet the expense he has incurred and which he cannot afford?
  MR. WOODALL: I am afraid I am not able to answer as to the particular facts alleged. We are satisfied that the man has no remedy as against the War Office. If the hon. Member cares to put a further question down I will look into it.
  MR. WILSON LLOYD: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the second paragraph of my question.
  MR. WOODALL: Whenever there is reason to suppose that a range is insecure, an investigation will be made and firing prohibited if necessary.

  CATHOLICS ON THE IRISH MAGISTRACY.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN (Westmeath, S.): In the absence of the hon. Member
  1228
  for West Kerry, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will give the date of the last Catholic appointment to the Bench in the Dingle district; and whether there is any likelihood of any Catholic appointments to the Magistracy being made there?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Since the present Government came into Office 29 County Magistrates have been appointed in Kerry, of whom 19 are believed to be Roman Catholics. Two gentlemen were appointed for duty at the Dingle Petty Sessions; one of them, appointed in March, 1893, is a Roman Catholic, and the other, appointed lately, is a Protestant. The Lord Chancellor will be glad to consider the names of any suitable Roman Catholic gentlemen that may be recommended to him for the Commission.

  THE STRABANE VOTING LISTS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on Monday, 13th August, the clerk of Strabane Union, North Tyrone, refused to allow John Torish, the Nationalist registration agent, who is a ratepayer, access to the Rate Collector's Returns, to ascertain if the Franchise Laws had been complied with by certain voters; whether he is aware that the majority in this division in 1892 was only 51; will he inquire why the following Conservatives, whose rates were not paid in time in 1893, were not officially objected to, and appear on the 1894 Register: Nos. 1,323, William Mackey; 1,678, J. Thompson; 217, J. Bill (in succession, rates unpaid on house in Castle Street); 232, John Jack (in succession, rates unpaid on Castle Street house); why two Nationalists, D. Gallagher and George Knox, Nos. 156 and 265 on the supplemental and inhabitant occupiers' lists, living in houses under £4, received no notice that the landlord had not paid the rates; whether the landlord also got no notice; and whether these men were, in consequence, officially objected to, and struck off the lists; and whether, as the Local Government Board declare it is not the duty of the Strabane Poor Law officials to know or act on the decision of the Court of Appeal on the Registration Law, they will ascertain on what ground the following Nationalists

  1229
  have been officially objected to by the clerk in the preparation of the Register for 1895: Nos. 146, Samuel Brown; 155, Thomas Brown; 280, Hugh Coyle; 991, J. M'Bride?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that permission to inspect, the documents mentioned was refused to Mr. Torish on the 15th instant, and to Mr. Miller, the Unionist registration agent, on the 14th instant. The clerk of the Union reports that he so refused because the period of 14 days prescribed for inspection by Section 18 of the Registration Act of 1885 had expired before the first of those dates; that he did not think he had any right to allow the inspection asked for; and that the Guardians approved of his conduct in refusing. The majority in this division in 1892 was 49. I am informed that all rates, for which the first three persons mentioned in the second paragraph were liable, were duly paid, and that there was no person named John Jack, of Castle Street, on the lists. I am informed that Daniel Gallagher was not officially objected to for unpaid rates, but that he was so objected to and struck off the list for having received outdoor relief, and that there was no official objection to George Knox. The Local Government Board state that they are not aware that they made such a statement as that referred to in the last paragraph. The statement to which my hon. and learned Friend personally refers is that made in reply to a question addressed to me on the 3rd instant, that I had been informed it does not devolve upon the Local Government Board to make clerks of Unions acquainted with the Registration Law, or to see that it is carried out, and that the Board had no jurisdiction over Boards of Guardians and clerks of Unions in their capacity of "Overseers" under the Franchise Acts. I am informed that Samuel Brown was objected to for subletting, and the other persons for not being sole occupiers under the decision of the Court of Appeal in Simpson's case.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Do I understand the clerk is justified in refusing access when Nationalists are concerned, and with allowing it to Tories?
  COMMANDER BETHELL: Is it not an objectionable course for the Government to inquire into the political opinions of voters?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Local Government Board did not enter into the question as to whether these voters were Conservatives or Nationalists. The question was as to certain numbers on the Registers.
  MR. ROSS: Is there any foundation for the charge against the clerk of this Union?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot say I see any foundation for a charge of improper conduct.
  LORD F. HAMILTONIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the clerk's action was approved by the Guardians, the majority of whom are Nationalists?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The majority of them are Tories.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have no information as to that.

  POACHERS SHOT BY GAMEKEEPERS AT DERRY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the fact that last Thursday, near Draperstown, County Deny, two men were shot by gamekeepers; one was Bernard M'Eldowney, whose leg is shattered by a bullet from a Martini-Henry; the other, Patrick M'Guiggan, whose foot was smashed so that it will probably have to be amputated; and that the two gamekeepers, Deane, and Lees, were arrested, but released on £100 bail by Mr. C. W. Dysart, J.P.; whether lie is aware that the Magistrate shook hands with the prisoner, Deane, before the inquiry; whether it is usual to release prisoners, especially on such small bail, when serious injury has been inflicted; if not, will the Lord Chancellor's attention be called to the circumstance; did the police resist bail; was the Crown professionally represented; and what is the present condition of the wounded men?
  MR. J. MORLEY: My attention has been drawn to a report of the occurrence referred to in the first paragraph. Each of the wounded men, who were poachers, was armed with a double-barrelled gun, and both of them fired the first shot at one of the gamekeepers, who, however, was not struck. They were shortly afterwards fired upon by Deane. One

  1231
  was seriously injured in the left leg, and the other in the left foot. The gamekeepers were arrested and charged with shooting at the poachers, and at the hearing of the case the Magistrate named took bail for their appearance at the next Petty Sessions. The Crown was not professionally represented at the hearing, but the District Inspector of Police conducted the proceedings and opposed bail being taken. I understand it is not usual to release prisoners on bail when serious injury has been inflicted, but it does not appear that the action of the Magistrate was illegal in the present case. I am making further inquiry into the matter, however. The police are unable to say whether the Magistrate shook hands with one of the prisoners before the inquiry, as alleged. The wounded men are improving, and no amputation, so I am told, will be necessary.

  PARLIAMENTARY INDICES.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: In the absence of the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottingham, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury who is responsible for making up the indices to the Evidence given before the Select Committees of this House; and whether witnesses before such Committees are permitted to have any share in making up or correction of proofs of such indices after they are set up by the printers?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): I am informed that the index to the Evidence given before a Select Committee is prepared by the printers, Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode, who are responsible for the same. Witnesses have no share in making up or correcting proofs of such index.

  TELEGRAPH FACILITIES IN TIPPERARY.
  MR. MANDEV1LLE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General is he aware that the people of Ardfinnan and of Bansha, County Tipperary, want to have postal telegraph offices established at both those places, and that they have applied to the Post Office authorities to facilitate them; if he is aware that the telegraph wires are already fixed up in Bansha, but that there is no telegraphic communication between
  1232
  those wires and the local post office adjoining; is he aware that the telegraph wires of the Waterford and Limerick Railway are about five miles off Ardfinnan Post Office; and will he give postal telegraphic offices at Ardfinnan and at Bansha?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): It is the fact that applications have been received for the establishment of telegraph offices at Ardfinnan and Bansha Post Offices. I regret to find that in neither case is the extension likely to prove remunerative; and I am therefore precluded by Treasury Regulations from affording the desired facilities except under guarantee, the amount of which in each case I will communicate to the hon. Member. The wires to which the hon. Member refers in the case of Bansha are through wires, which are not available for serving that office. It would be necessary to erect a new wire from Bansha Post Office to Tipperary. The hon. Member is probably aware that the guarantee might be given by the Local Authority.

  POLICE BARRACKS IN TIPPERARY.
  MR. MANDEVILLE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that, in reference to the contemplated abolition of certain police barracks in the County Tipperary, the ratepayers, who pay for them, are of opinion the least useful police barracks are those that should be abolished; and that great discontent exists there because Ballydavid Police Barrack has not been abolished instead of Kilmoyler Police Barrack; has he seen on the Ordnance Map of that county the relative positions of both places; will he inquire further into the reasons why Kilmoyler Barrack was selected for abolition, instead of the less useful one at Ballydavid; and will he see that the ratepayers' views of this important matter are represented to the Constabulary Authorities in Dublin Castle?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The breaking up of one or more police stations in the county became necessary in consequence of a recent reduction in the police establishment of the county. It became a question whether the station at Ballydavid or Kilmoyler should be broken up,

  1233
  and the Divisional Commissioner and local officers agreed that Kilmoyler station was the least useful of the two and could better be dispensed with. Certain of the ratepayers of the locality, who objected to the abolition of Kilmoyler, did lay their views before the Constabulary Authorities, and their representations were carefully considered before the surrender of the barrack was recommended. All the correspondence in the matter was before Govenment, who expressed concurrence in the recommendation of the Local Authorities.

  THE POLICE AND IRISH LAND DISPUTES.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that District Inspector Cosgrave, Kanturk, had two colts grazing on an evicted farm at Toureen, Knocknagree, from which a tenant named Mahony was evicted; and that the same police officer removed the colts to another evicted farm at Ardnaguta, from which a tenant named O'Connell was evicted; is he aware that the colts were attended to by the caretakers, who are under police protection; and whether the Constabulary Authorities sanctioned the action of this officer in thus intervening in a matter of dispute between landlord and tenant?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The facts, I am informed, are substantially as stated in the question. The sending of the horses to graze on the evicted farms is stated to have been an ordinary business transaction, and Mr. Cosgrave had no intention of intervening in the matter in the sense imputed in the question. At the same time, I consider that this action was imprudent, and open to this latter construction, having regard to his position as a police officer, and shall so inform the Inspector General.
  MR. ROSS: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to lay it down that the Constabulary should take part in the boycotting of farms?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. and learned Gentleman must know that I mean to lay down nothing of the kind. I consider that in this case the officer did what was not his duty, and his superior officer has been so informed.
  MR. ROSS: In what has this officer done wrong? How has he transgressed the law?
  MR. MACARTNEY: Has he violated any regulation of the Royal Irish Constabulary?
  MR. J. MORLEY: There are many things an officer may do which are indiscreet, but are not mentioned in the Queen's Regulations, and when such cases are brought to the notice of the Irish Government, it is their duty to investigate them and, if necessary, reprimand the officer.
  MR. FLYNN: Does not the Constabulary Code prohibit a policeman taking a farm in the neighbourhood of his own station?
  [No answer was given.]

  OUTDOOR OFFICERS OF CUSTOMS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the existing Regulations which enable persons serving in the Civil Service and other specified situations to compete at the examinations for outdoor officers of Customs will continue in force as at present until the contemplated change of age takes place?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Clause 4 of the General Regulations for open competitive examinations for the Civil Service, by which persons who have served for two full consecutive years in any civil situation to which they were admitted with the certificate of the Civil Service Commissioners may, in reckoning age for competition, deduct from their actual age any time not exceeding five years which they may have spent in such service, continues in force, and will so continue under the new Regulations.

  THE SOUTH MEATH VOTERS' LISTS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in addition to the allegations already made affecting the South Meath Register of Voters, he will inquire whether the following persons were struck off the 1893 Register by having their names scored through by the Revising Barrister, yet that they appear in the 1894 list—namely, Polling District of Dunboyne: Nos. 53, Carlin, John, Bodies, labourer's house (not living there for several years); 217,

  1235
  Larkin, Michael, Dunboyne, labourer's house (dead several years); 245, Martin, Michael, Clouee (dead many years); 15, Blackburn, John, Dunboyne (dead several years); Polling District of Athboy; Nos. 44, Byrne, Henry, Athboy; 90, Clarke, Michael, Jamestown; 446, Masterson, Michael, Baskinagh Upper (struck off last year as Thomas); 459, Miggin, John, Kildalkey; 488, Mulvey, Bartle, Kildalkey; 511, Murtagh, John, Castletown; 514, Murtagh, Patrick, Castletown; 393, Lawless, Peter, Martins-town (not on last year's list nor premises for many years); if he will ask the Revising Barrister whether he authorised the insertion of these names in the 1894 list; and, if not, what authority the Clerk of the Peace had to re-insert them; and if, having regard to the very many serious allegations affecting this list, the Lord Chancellor will inquire into the conduct of the Clerk of the Peace?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have received a long and elaborate answer, and I would rather in the first place make it a matter of private communication to the hon. and learned Member, who, when he has seen it, can, if he is not satisfied, put a further question down.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I have put to the right hon. Gentleman a whole series of questions regarding these lists. Serious allegations have been made affecting this gentleman. The majority in the Division was only 50, and many more than 50 names are concerned. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider if he should allow these allegations to pass without an investigation by some competent authority?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Before answering that question I should be glad if the hon. Member, for mine as well as his own information, will go through the list of names submitted to me by the Clerk of the Peace, and will make upon them any observations he may deem necessary.

  THE CASE OF HANNAH WALSH.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the case of the late Katie Walsh, of Clash, near Ballyduff, whose mental faculties have been shattered owing to an attack made upon her, and who has been conveyed to the Killarney Lunatic Asylum; and, if so, whether
  1236
  any of her assailants are known, and whether any steps have been taken to make them amenable?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The alleged attack on Hannah (not Kate) Walsh is being investigated by the police, who inform me that so far as their inquiries have proceeded there are no grounds whatever for believing that the girl received any ill-treatment prior to her becoming insane.

  INCOME TAX COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. BALLANTINE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Land Tax Commissioners, appointed by an Act of Parliament of last Session, are entitled to be summoned, together with the Land Tax Commissioners previously appointed in each borough, for the purpose of choosing from their number Income Tax Commissioners?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am informed that it is legally obligatory on the Land Tax Commissioners to meet once a year before April 30, and notice of such meeting has to be posted on church doors, &c. Any person named in the Land Tax Commissioners' Names Act is entitled to attend, and, when qualified, to act as Land Tax Commissioner. Additional Income Tax Commissioners are only appointed when, in the opinion of the Board of Inland Revenue, the existing number is insufficient, and when the statutory notice has been given by the Board in The London Gazette that a meeting will be held for that purpose.

  VISITS OF TRAINING SHIPS TO IRELAND.
  MR. ROSS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the training ship Northampton may be expected to visit Lough Foyle; and, if so, when?
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: May I respectfully point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member for Derry has merely copied a question which appeared in my name on the Order Paper last Monday—and which at the request of the Secretary to the Admiralty, I postponed until to-day, and which, in fact, appears later in the Paper—simply substituting "Lough Foyle" for "Cork Harbour"? May I ask you, Sir, whether the offspring should be permitted to take precedence? I am aware, Sir, that

  1237
  imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but I think in this ease it has been carried a little too far.
  MR. SPEAKER: The answer of the Minister may possibly satisfy both hon. Gentlemen.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,): Perhaps I may answer the two questions together. My answer to the hon. Member for East Cork is, the Northampton arrived at Queenstown on the evening of the 12th instant. In answer to the hon. Member for Derry, I have to say that Lough Foyle is not included among the places to be visited by the Northampton during her present cruise.
  MR. ROSSasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that it was 10 years since the Channel Fleet visited Lough Foyle? Why did the Admiralty treat Lough Foyle in that manner? They even refused this year to send the ordinary gunboat to Londonderry Regatta.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Every port has its turn. The Channel Fleet has lately been to Lough Swilly, which is in the immediate vicinity. It is impossible to visit all the places which pay the Fleet the compliment of wishing for a visit. As to the sending of a gunboat to a regatta, there is a general rule regulating that.
  MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a promise was made a fortnight ago that the Northampton should be sent to Stornoway?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

  CIVIL SERVANTS AND PARISH COUNCILS.
  MR. STOREY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is understood that all Civil servants may stand as candidates for and be members of Parish and District Councils without any consent being asked of superiors, provided that such candidature and the performance of the duties of Councillor do not interfere with the proper discharge of the Civil servants' duties to the State?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Yes, Sir; subject to the condition that if in any par-
  1238
  ticular case the duties of the two services are found to conflict, power must be retained to the head of the Department to require the Civil servant to retire from the Council.

  THE STRABANE RATE COLLECTION.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if it has been brought to his notice that James Craig, rate collector, Strabane Union, is in arrear with his collection £342, in consequence of which some voters must be disqualified for nonpayment of rates at forthcoming revision for North Tyrone; whether Craig furnished the Clerk of Union with any list of defaulters so that official objections might be entered on the Voters' List for non-payment of rates; whether the private objector for the North Tyrone Nationalists, John Torish, applied for and was refused permission to inspect the list of defaulters if such exists; whether, last year, a number of persons in Craig's collection, who had not paid rates, were allowed without objection to remain on the Register; and whether the Government will secure that private objectors for political Parties in North Tyrone and elsewhere shall be allowed free access to all Poor Law records and documents on which the right to the franchise depends, so that if whether by mistake, neglect, or any other cause the Union officials fail in their duty, an opportunity may be given to correct errors in time to affect the Register?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that the first paragraph is correct, but that a large portion of this sum is due on waste premises and ratings divided since last year. I am informed that the necessary information with regard to non-payment of rates was furnished by Craig to the Clerk of the Union. The reply to the third paragraph was given in my answer to the question No. 8 for to-day of my hon. and learned Friend. I am informed that the facts are as stated in the fourth paragraph as regards one or two weekly tenants who had been in occupation, for a very short period, of certain premises for which the rates had not been paid and had then changed to other premises. I am informed that the provisions of the Registration Acts with reference to inspection are strictly complied with in this division.

  THE NEW TREATY WITH JAPAN.
  SIR T. SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the new Treaty, which has been negotiated with Japan, abandons on the part of Great Britain the system of extraterritorial jurisdiction which has been considered hitherto necessary to protect the interests of British subjects in their relations with Oriental countries; and whether the tariff attached to the new Treaty authorities an increase in the amount of duties; and, if so, if adequate notice will be given of the same to enable merchants to govern their operations accordingly?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): Under the new Treaty the extra-territorial jurisdiction will eventually cease, but not for at least five years, and then only in return for certain advantages to be obtained for British interests. The tariff attached to the new Treaty authorises an increase in duties. Under the Treaty the tariff may come into force within one month after the exchange of the ratifications of the Treaty, but it practically cannot be applied to British subjects unless the nationals of other countries are subjected to it, and this they will not be until Japan has concluded similar Treaties with those countries. The Treaty will be published as soon as the ratifications have been exchanged.

  ASSISTANT INSPECTOR OF QUARRIES.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Mr. Williams, the recently appointed Assistant Inspector, who is said to have worked at an open quarry, never worked at the rock, but simply, when a young man, used to pick up slabs cast aside by the regular quarrymen and split them into slates; and that, ever since, he has been engaged as a pupil teacher and a schoolmaster; whether, inasmuch as he has appointed, in addition to Mr. Williams, another Assistant Inspector, also from Merionethshire, who has thorough practical experience of work in quarry slate mines, he will re-consider his decision, and appoint
  1240
  another assistant equally experienced in open slate quarrying; and whether he is aware that only about 4,200 workmen are employed in the slate mines of Merionethshire, from which district both the Assistant Inspectors recently appointed are drawn, whereas over 8,000 quarrymen are employed in the open slate quarries of Carnarvonshire?
  MR. ASQUITH: It is the fact that Mr. Williams when a young man began work at the quarries as described in the first paragraph of my hon. Friend's question, but he subsequently became for a time a workman in the slate mill. He did not work as a rockman, but he received the slate that he had to dress from a part of the quarry which was then worked as an open quarry, and which he had to visit almost daily. After leaving the quarry he was employed in school work. The fact, however, that Mr. Williams did not work as a rockman appears to me to be immaterial, having regard to the wide knowledge of quarrying in all its branches which ho has since obtained, and which, as I have already stated, fully qualified him in my opinion for the appointment. The numbers of quarrymen employed in the open quarries of Carnarvonshire is 8,436; the number employed in the Merionethshire slate mines is 4,321, of whom more than one-half work above ground. There are also in Merionethshire open slate quarries employing from 300 to 400 men, and it must be borne in mind that nearly all the slate mines in Merionethshire were originally worked as open quarries. The Inspectors are appointed not for particular counties, but for the whole of North Wales, and I believe no one is more fitted for the work in all its branches than Mr. Williams. I cannot make any additional appointments at present.

  THE WICKLOW MAGISTRACY.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with regard to the fact that the last Return of the Irish Magistracy showed that there were, on the County Wicklow Bench, 103 Protestant and 13 Catholic Magistrates, and that the Catholics are nearly four-fifths of the population, what steps has the Lord Chancellor of Ireland taken to reduce the disproportion between Protestants and Catholics on the Wicklow

  1241
  Bench; and how many Nationalists has the Lord Chancellor appointed since August 1892, and how many Tories and Unionists?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Since the present Government came into Office 23 Magistrates have been appointed for the County Wicklow, of whom 15 are believed to be Roman Catholics, seven to be Protestants, and one a member of the Society of Friends. The Lord Chancellor has no knowledge of the political tendencies of any of these gentlemen, but he observes that the appointments of 17 of them were recommended to him by supporters of the present Government.

  THE DUBLIN DRAINAGE SCHEME.
  MR. ROSS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State of War if he has received a resolution from the Committee of the Dublin Ratepayers' Association, protesting against the Corporation scheme of main drainage as most expensive and inefficient; and whether the War Department has any power to sell the Pigeon House Fort, being an armed fortress, to the Corporation for the purposes of this scheme?
  MR. WOODALL(who replied) said: No such resolution as that referred to can be traced as having been received at the War Office. The Government has power to sell Pigeon House Fort.
  MR. ROSS: Has the hon. Gentleman any objection to state whether the Report received from the Royal Engineers on the subject is favourable or unfavourable to the scheme?
  MR. WOODALL: I have not seen the Report, but I imagine it would only deal with the scheme so far as it affected the interests of the War Office. The responsibility for the general character of the scheme rests not with the War Office, but with the citizens of Dublin.
  MR. ROSS: I will call attention to the matter on the Estimates.

  CATTLE TRUCKS ON THE HIGHLAND RAILWAY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the medium trucks of the Highland Railway Company are undersized and only capable of carrying seven full-sized cattle as compared with eight by the
  1242
  trucks of other Companies; and that in consequence the rate per truck from some parts of Ross-shire to London is £10, or 25s. more than if the capacity of the truck were equal to that of other Companies; and whether the Highland Railway Company will be required by the Board of Trade to use a medium truck of larger size, or make a proportionate reduction in their charges?
  MR. BRYCE: I have communicated with the Highland Railway Company, and the General Manager informs me that all Highland trucks are capable of carrying eight cattle, are of medium size, and do not materially differ from those of other Companies in Scotland. The Highland Company have some trucks six inches less in length, but these are being gradually converted to the medium or full size—namely, 15 feet 6 inches, and 18 feet in length respectively. The Board of Trade have no power to interfere as to the size of the trucks; any specific complaints of unreasonable treatment will, however, be dealt with by the Board under Section 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888.

  THE TOKAR TRIBESMEN.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the tribesmen in Tokar are still prevented by the Egyptian Government from cultivating and occupying their lands, and whether there is any prospect of their reinstatement; whether legitimate trade between Suakin and the interior of the Soudan, viâ Kassala and Berber, is still interdicted by Her Majesty's Representatives in Cairo; and whether that interdict may be removed?
  SIR E. GREY: The tribesmen of Tokar are not, and have not been, prevented from cultivating and occupying their lands; but owing to the failure of the Baraka flood, there has been more distress in the district, and there is less land under cultivation than there was last year, as the hon. Member will see by referring to the second paragraph on page 13 of Lord Cromer's Report presented to the House in Egypt No. 1, 1894. The third paragraph on the same page states that a limited trade is carried on between Suakin and Berber. This has continued for the last six months, metals or warlike materials being alone interdicted.

  THE IRISH LAND AND MIGRATION COMPANY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to a letter published by His Eminence Cardinal Logue respecting the Irish Land and Migration Company and the dealings of the Government therewith, especially as to the free gift of £50,000 by the State; and will any explanation be called for from any person concerned, or is it intended to take any notice of or call for any reply to the statements of His Eminence?
  MR. J. MORLEY: My attention was called some time ago to this letter, and I at once applied for information on the subject. Communications are proceeding, and I should be glad if the hon. and learned Member will postpone the question for a day or two.

  MILITARY BANDS AT POLITICAL MEETINGS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the report in The Surrey Advertiser of 4th August, relative to the proceedings of the Cranleigh Habitation of the Primrose League, at which the band of the West Surrey Regiment is stated to have attended and played; whether he is aware that the report shows that the gathering was a purely Party one; that Sir Richard Webster, M.P., spoke on political subjects, and apologised for the absence of another Conservative Member; whether the War Office has several times declared that military bands must not attend Party meetings; and who is responsible for inviting the band to be present on this occasion, and who sanctioned its attendance on behalf of the regiment?
  MR. WOODALL(who replied) said: The attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the report referred to. In reply to inquiries since made, it appears that permission for the band to play at Cranleigh was given by the officer commanding the 2nd Regimental District at the request of the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight, who is a resident in the locality. The officer commanding was, however, unaware that it was intended to be employed at a
  1244
  Primrose League meeting. Had he anticipated that it would have been so employed he would have refused permission on the ground that it was contrary to the Queen's Regulations.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Am I to understand that the band of any regiment will be granted to anyone who applies for it without any statement as to the object for which it is required?
  MR. WOODALL: It was undoubtedly the duty of the Commanding Officer before granting permission to satisfy himself that the band was intended to be used in a way consistent with the Queen's Regulations. He appears to have failed in that particular.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Did the letter addressed to the officer commanding by the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight withhold from him the information as to the kind of gathering the band was to play at?
  MR. WOODALL: It did not say what the nature and purpose of the particular gathering was.
  MR. FLYNN: Are we to understand that an ex-Attorney General of this House has broken the law?
  [No answer was given.]

  HARTSHILL SCHOOLROOM.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether a class-room built at Hartshill, in the County of Worcester, in the year 1891, and recognised by the Department in the years 1892 and 1893, has now been condemned; and whether he will re-consider the matter?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): There does not appear to be any school of this name in Worcestershire. I do not know whether the question refers to Hartshill National School, in the County of Warwick; but no class-room has been condemned there. If the hon. Member will let me have details, I shall be glad to consider the case.

  BUTLEY SCHOOL, SUFFOLK.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will inquire into

  1245
  the requirement made upon the managers of Butley School, Suffolk, with regard to alterations; whether it is necessary to make it a condition of approval of such requirements that they must be in exact accordance with the technical requirements of Schedule VII. of the Code; and whether he will save expense and trouble to the managers by giving or withholding approval of the proposed alterations before they are made?
  MR. ACLAND: It has been laid down in the Code since 1890 that all new school premises and enlargements must conform generally to the Rules contained in Schedule VII. The plans sent up by the managers appear not to have been drawn in accordance with the requirements of Schedule VII., and, moreover, seem, so far as can be judged from the correspondence, to have been not very intelligible. But if the plans are again forwarded to the Department, I will see what further information can be given to the managers.

  THE TREATMENT OF ANARCHISTS.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a quotation from The Journal des Débats in The Times of the 11th instant, in which it is stated that of the countries in which Anarchist centres are known to exist Great Britain is the only one which has refused to take any steps, continuing to think, as Lord Rosebery has said, that all is quiet; and whether he can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will do all which the law allows to keep such dangerous liberty within bounds? In putting the question, the hon. Member said that the quotation he included in it when he handed it in at the Table had—no doubt for a good reason—been struck out; but he feared that without it the question did not convey his meaning.
  MR. SPEAKER: The question was revised, and even now the expression "dangerous" is left in, and ought not to have been. "Dangerous" is the expression of an opinion.
  MR. TALBOT: I am sorry anything has been left in which ought not to have appeared, but as the question now stands, it does not convey the impression I wish it to convey. The last words are,
  1246
  "Whether he can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will do all which the law allows to keep such dangerous liberty within bounds."
  There is no previous reference to dangerous liberty.
  MR. SPEAKER: Words were purposely omitted.
  MR. TALBOT: May I be permitted to read the quotation?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman may give its purport.
  MR. ASQUTTH: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the question. The attention of the Government has not been called otherwise than by the question to the passage referred to. It appears to be an irresponsible statement by a foreign journalist. No complaint or representation of any kind in the sense of the quotation has been made to Her Majesty's Government by any foreign Government; and the statements in the foreign newspaper, so far as they purpose to be statements of fact, are without any foundation. The policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to this question was fully explained by the Prime Minister in the House of Lords on July 17, and I must refer the hon. Member to his speech. We think the measures taken in this country for dealing with Anarchists to be at least as well-considered and effective for the purpose as those adopted elsewhere; and we believe the existing law, if administered with energy and discretion, to be adequate both for our own protection and for the performance of our International engagements.

  THE CROPS IN IRELAND.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the serious and damaging effect on the harvest in Ireland owing to the heavy continuous rains, and to the fact that the potato blight in a virulent form has appeared in many districts; and, if so, will the Local Government Board set inquiry on foot as to the effect of the potato disease in the poorer and more distressed districts of the country, and take steps to cope with any distress which may arise?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Reports received from the Inspectors of the Local Government Board show that down to the middle of July the crops everywhere

  1247
  promised well, but the recent and continued heavy rains have been very unfavourable to the hay and potato crop, and the latest Reports show that blight has made its appearance in some parts of the West and South of Ireland. Up to the present the disease has not gone far, though a further continuance of the wet weather would cause it to spread. I am glad to learn that there has been a marked improvement in the price of sheep and cattle at recent fairs in the west, especially in the smaller class of cattle. The Inspectors of the Local Government Board have been instructed to keep the Board informed as to the state of the crops and the condition of the poorer classes, but it will not be possible to form an accurate estimate of the potato harvest until the main crop is dug in October.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: At one time experiments were made with a view of dealing with the disease and stopping it in its early stages. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say whether the Government has turned their attention to the practicability of continuing those experiments on an extensive scale.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Land Commission conducted a series of experiments, and the Government are doing what they can to have those experiments extended and the results of them made available.

  BULWANT RAO BUTE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now prepared to state if any provision will be made for the widow of Bulwant Rao Bute, who was murdered under circumstances of great brutality within British jurisdiction in the Gwalior State by Asad Jar Khan, the Superintendent of Police of the Indore State, and two of his subordinates, with the assistance of other persons?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): The Government of India were asked in a letter by the last mail to state whether any steps have been taken to obtain compensation for the widow of Bulwant Rao. As soon as an answer is received, I will let the hon. Member know.

  ASSISTANT INSPECTORS OF MINES.
  MR. ATHERLEY JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the limit of age to which persons are eligible for appointment to the office of Assistant Inspectors of Mines is 35 years, and by what authority such limit exists; whether, if such be the case, the operation of the Rule has been to exclude from eligibility for such office a very large number of working miners who have sent in applications to be appointed; and whether he will consider the expediency of procuring a modification of such Rule in the interests of working miners?
  MR. ASQUITH: The limits of age for candidates for the appointment of Inspector of Coal Mines were fixed at 23 to 35 in October, 1873, by Mr. Lowe, who was then Home Secretary; and in 1887, after the passing of the Coal Mines Regulation Act of that year in which the appointment of Assistant Inspector is recognised, the same limits of age were fixed for their appointment by my predecessor, with the concurrence of the Treasury and the Civil Service Commissioners under the power of the Order in Council of June 4, 1870. No doubt a good many working miners, and other candidates as well, have been ineligible for nomination to compete for this appointment in consequence of being over 35. The number of candidates, working miners and others, within that limit is, however, very large, and as at present advised I do not see any sufficient ground for modifying the conditions. I shall be glad to consider any representations from miners and other persons interested in the question.

  THE GOVERNMENT AND THE TELEPHONE COMPANIES.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, having regard to the statement in the Treasury Minute of the 23rd of May, 1892, upon the proposal of the development of the telephone system in the United Kingdom, that the intention is to meet, as far as possible, the views of the Municipal Authorities, and having regard to the fact that the proposals are embodied in certain Draft Agreements which have only, at this late period of the Session, just been circulated, he will

  1249
  postpone until next Session the completion of the said Agreements, so as to give the Municipal Authorities, who have now adjourned, an opportunity, which they will not otherwise have, of considering and expressing their views on the Draft Agreements?
  MR. BENN: At the same time I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, having regard to the statement in the Treasury Minute of the 23rd of May, 1892, upon the proposals for the development of the telephone system in the United Kingdom that the intention is to meet, as far as possible, the views of the Municipal Authorities; and having regard to the fact that the proposals are embodied in certain Draft Agreements which have only just been laid upon the Table of the House, he will postpone until next Session the confirmation of the said Agreements, so as to give the London County Council and other Municipal Authorities, who have now adjourned for the vacation, the opportunity which they will not otherwise have of considering and expressing their views on the said Draft Agreements?
  MR. WHITTAKER: And I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will defer the final confirmation of the proposed Agreements with the Telephone Companies until next Session; in order to afford the Municipal Authorities of the country an opportunity of considering them and expressing their views upon them?
  SIR A. ROLLIT: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers these questions, may I ask whether the Draft Agreement was not based on a Treasury Minute submitted to and approved by Parliament; and is it not also within the Regulations formulated by Parliament? Would not the public interests suffer by further delay?
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider as to the desirability of referring this Draft Agreement to a committee of business men before next Session commences? Is he aware that the heads of the Draft Agreement were never submitted to the House of Commons?
  MR. A. MORLEY: A Committee in 1892 recommended that the details of the
  1250
  arrangement should be carried out by the Department, and I should not feel justified in referring the matter to a Committee. I have pointed out, in reply to previous questions, that the Agreement does not require the confirmation of Parliament. I may again point out that it merely carries out the policy which has already received Parliamentary sanction, and in connection with which large sums have already been expended, out of the amount authorised to be raised by the Telegraph Act of 1892, in the erection of main trunk lines. As I have before stated, the Telegraph Estimates will afford an opportunity for any discussion that it may be desired to raise, and, in view of the inconvenience and prejudice of the public interests which the further delay desired by the hon. Members would involve, I am not prepared to assent to the postponement of the matter until next Session.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it reasonable and fair to the Municipal Authorities who were promised the Agreement before it was signed that it should only have been sent to them when everybody must have known they were away on their holidays?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I regret that I was not able to lay it on the Table earlier. If I thought that it in any sense interfered with the rights, privileges, and powers of the Municipality or in any way restricted their rights with regard to licences I should have agreed with the hon. Member, but I am satisfied such circumstances do not exist, and that no one will be prejudiced.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Will not this Agreement, now practically concluded, prevent the granting of any licences to Municipal Authorities for a period of 18 years?
  MR. A. MORLEY: No; it will not have any such effect. An endeavour was no doubt made to interfere with the rights of the Postmaster General in that respect, but I steadily refused to sanction it, and as the Agreement now stands my discretion in the matter remains absolutely unfettered.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer consent to devote two or three days to the discussion of this Agreement on the Estimates?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: No, Sir; not if I can help it.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: My right hon. Friend will be unable to help it.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Then why ask me?

  THE UNIFICATION OF LONDON.
  MR. BENN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the Report of the Royal Commission for the Unification of London will be circulated?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE,): The Report is in course of preparation, and, as I am informed, will he issued shortly.

  THE ANGLO-CONGOLESE AGREEMENT.
  SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will forthwith lay before Parliament those portions of the Agreement between France and the Congo State, signed on Tuesday, which affect the Anglo-Congo-lese Convention; whether, in the Agreement with France, the Sovereign of the Congo State binds himself not to exercise any political control whatsoever westward of the 30th degree of longitude, or northward of the latitude 5 degrees 30 minutes, and to limit his action south and east of such lines; and what, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, will be the future situation on the territory of the Nile, near Lado, lying immediately to the north of latitude 5 degrees 30 minutes?
  SIR A. ROLLIT: Will the hon. Baronet say whether the Agreement between France and the Congo Free State is or is not made subject to the approval of Great Britain?
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: May I ask whether, under the Convention just concluded between France and the Congo Free State, the King of the Belgians has renounced most of the territory leased to the Congo Free State under the Anglo-Congo Treaty of 12th of May; whether under the Franco-Congo Convention, the French boundary is moved eastward as
  1252
  far as the 30th meridian, so as to come within 50 miles of the Nile, and to include Darfur and a large portion of the Equatorial Provinces; whether Her Majesty's Government were consulted before this Treaty was concluded; and whether Her Majesty's Government intend to recognise its validity?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: And will the hon. Baronet state what is the effect of the new Franco-Congolese Agreement upon the Anglo-Belgian Agreement of the 12th of May, 1894; and whether he will lay a copy of the former document upon the Table of House?
  SIR E. GREY: We have not yet received the text as signed. When it is received it will be laid before Parliament. By this Agreement the Congo State renounces all influence and occupation west and north of a line thus determined: Longitude 30° E. starting from its intersection with the watershed of the Congo and Nile basins up to the point where it meets the parallel 5° 30 N., and then along that parallel to the Nile. No limitation south and east of this line is made by the Agreement. Her Majesty's Government were informed of the arrangement between France and the King of the Belgians, and did not oppose His Majesty's desire to sign it; but they are in no sense parties to it, and the territory north of Lado and in the western watershed of the Nile basin remains in the British sphere of influence, subject to the rights of Turkey and Egypt, as it was before the Agreement with the King of the Belgians was signed. Lord Dufferin has returned to Paris to continue with M. Hanotaux the discussion which we hope will lead to a settlement of pending difficulties between the two countries.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: The hon. Baronet has not answered the second paragraph. Can he say whether the French Government have given an undertaking not to occupy Darfur or any portion of the Equatorial Province?
  SIR A. ROLLIT: And the hon. Baronet has not answered my question, in which, however, I should like to substitute the word "concurrence" for "approval."
  SIR E. GREY: I said we were informed of the arrangement between France and the King of the Belgians. France has not given any undertaking under this Agreement, which does not move the French boundary into the Nile basin.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: What is the degree of latitude at which the Franco-Congo frontier intersects the 30th degree of longitude? Much depends on that.
  SIR E. GREY: It is defined in the first Article of the Treaty.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: My point is this: How far will the French be from the Nile waterway? Will they come within 40 miles of the Nile itself? Has France given any undertaking not to occupy any of the region which we know as the Equatorial Province?
  SIR E. GREY: I cannot make any statement as to the French undertakings while the negotiations are proceeding. The Agreement, I repeat, does not alter the French boundary at all in a way to affect the Nile basin.

  THE EGLWYSEG RURAL POSTMAN.
  MR. H. ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the case of Edward Thomas, rural postman in the Eglwyseg district, Denbighshire, who, after 20 years' service, has recently met with an accident whilst on duty which totally disabled him for further work; whether he is aware that owing to a technical difficulty the usual pension has been refused to him by the Lords of the Treasury; and whether, under the special circumstances of the case, he will use his influence to obtain a relaxation of the strict terms of the Superannuation Act with the view to securing a pension or an adequate provision for the person referred to?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The case of Edward Thomas has been brought under my notice, and all the facts have been reported to the Lords of the Treasury, who, while regretting that Thomas's service did not entitle him to the benefits of the Superannuation Acts, have been pleased to sanction the payment to him of a special gratuity of £15 from
  1254
  the Compassionate Fund at their disposal. Under these circumstances, I am sorry to say, in reply to the hon. Member's question, that I can hold out no hope of obtaining more favourable treatment for Thomas.

  CHELSEA HOSPITAL.
  CAPTAIN KAYLOR-LEYLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the Report of the Committee which was appointed during this Session to inquire into Chelsea Hospital may be expected to be published?
  MR. WOODALL(who replied) said: The Secretary of State has not yet received the Report of the Committee on Chelsea Hospital: but it is understood that it will lie submitted to him in a few days, and it will be published in due course.

  CRICCIETH BEACH.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE&c.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board have issued a notice prohibiting the removal of sand, gravel, or other materials from a portion of the beach at Criccieth, South Carnarvonshire; whether it has been brought to his notice that stones, sand, and gravel for building purposes at Criccieth have hitherto been obtained from the beach, and that this prohibition will seriously affect the development of the town; and will he explain the reason why the notice is issued?
  MR. BRYCE: Complaints were received by the Board of Trade from the Local Board of Criccieth and also from the owners of properties fronting the sea near Criccieth that the removal of materials from the foreshore below high-water mark in front of their properties was endangering the safety of the sea wall erected by the Local Board and was causing damage to their lands lying behind the beach. Having been advised that these complaints were well founded the Board decided to adopt the course usually followed by them in similar instances, where it is apprehended that the practice complained of might facilitate encroachment by the sea, and issued notices in the usual form prohibiting the removal of materials from the foreshore referred to.

  THE EVICTED TENANTS BILL.
  MR. MAGUIRE: In the absence of the hon. Member for South Roscommon, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, with the view of encouraging voluntary settlements pending the introduction of another Evicted Tenants Bill, he would be able to promise to favourably consider a provision in the measure under which such pecuniary grant can be made in the case of such settlements as the tribunal to be appointed would find the parties would have been entitled to if the Bill which recently passed this House had become law, notwithstanding that the evicted tenant may have been reinstated before a new Act shall have been passed?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am not sure, after carefully reading the question, what my hon. Friend wishes. At all events, it is a hypothetical and problematical question, which could scarcely be answered across the floor of the House.
  COLONEL NOLAN: The question is this: If in the coming winter an arrangement is made by any of the evicted tenants with their landlords on the same terms as those included in the rejected tenants Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that in any future Bill those cases of arrangement shall be allowed to share the benefits?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Before giving an undertaking of that kind I should want to know what were the terms of the arrangement?
  COLONEL NOLAN: If the landlord accepts one year's rent from the tenant, will the hon. Gentleman undertake that the Government will allow him another year's rent?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It is obvious that I cannot give an undertaking of that kind. That would be a matter for the Arbitration Tribunal to deal with.

  STROKESTOWN MEDICAL OFFICER.
  MR. MAGUIRE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that Dr. Dillon, medical officer of Strokestown Dispensary and a Magistrate for the County of Roscommon, in a charge of assault brought by the Queen, at the prosecution of
  1256
  Patrick M'Loughlin against Francis M'Loughlin and Michael M'Loughlin, was called in and professionally employed to attend Patrick M'Loughlin, the prosecutor; that the defendants were obliged to pay Dr. Dillon £2 for a certificate that the life of the prosecutor was not in danger, before they got out on bail; that Dr. Dillon afterwards, on the 1st of August, attended as a Magistrate at Rooskey Petty Sessions, in the County Roscommon, on the hearing of the said complaint, and adjudicated in the case, notwithstanding the protest of the solicitor for the defence that he should not do so, being an interested party who had been in professional attendance for reward on the prosecutor; and that Dr. Dillon refused to leave the Bench, and took an active part in the proceedings, saying that he did not care for the protests of the solicitor, and adjudicated with the other Magistrates in the case, when the defendants were fined £4 and costs; and if he will bring the matter under the notice of the Lord Chancellor with the view of preventing Justices of the Peace adjudicating under similar circumstances in the future?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It would be improper for a Magistrates to adjudicate in a ease in which he had been professionally employed. If the facts are as stated in the question, I shall bring the matter under the notice of the Lord Chancellor.

  THE IRISH ORDNANCE SURVEY OFFICE.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture has the employment of excessive juvenile labour been discontinued in the Ordnance Survey Office, Phoenix Park, Dublin, and has the Fair Wage Resolution been adopted in the Department?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): I am sorry I cannot add anything to what I have already stated to my hon. Friend in reply to the previous questions he has addressed to me on this subject. The information before me goes to show that the proportion of boy or "juvenile" labour is not greater than is consistent with the nature of the work to be done, and that a comparison of the position of the Ordnance

  1257
  Survey Staff in Dublin with that of persons doing similar work in private employ would be favourable to the former, and I may refer my hon. Friend to the conclusions arrived at by the Departmental Committee of 1891, a copy of whose Report was laid on the Table.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMITTEE AND "THE TIMES."
  MR. SEXTON: I wish, Sir, to draw your attention to the fact that The Times newspaper of to-day under the heading "Political Notes'" contains a series of paragraphs purporting to give detailed particulars of the deliberations of the Select Committee on the Working of the Irish Land Acts yesterday, the Committee being now engaged in the consideration of their Report. The same newspaper on a previous day contained what purported to be the particulars of the proposals contained in the Draft Report of the Chairman of the Committee which was confidentially circulated among the Members of the Committee. I am informed also that one of the News Agencies has circulated a paragraph containing similar information. I wish to know, Sir, whether communications such as must have been made to the Press in this case are permissible?
  MR. SPEAKER: It is often very difficult in cases of the kind to prevent transactions in Committee from being made public. I should say that it was for the Chairman of a Committee to consult with his colleagues as to the best means of preventing any part of their Report from being made public before it is officially presented to the House. Perhaps something might lie done in that way to prevent those occurrences.
  MR. J. MORLEY: This question was raised at a meeting of the Committee to-day, and, I think, very properly. Having regard to the nature of the proceedings of the Select Committee, and to the details of their elaborate Report, I am surprised that any Member of that Committee should have felt himself at liberty to communicate to the Press any account of what has occurred. The feeling expressed this morning in the Committee was very strong and decisive that whoever had made this communication to the Press had been guilty of an impropriety, and to some extent of an act
  1258
  of disloyalty to his colleagues in the Committee.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask, Sir, whether it is not possible to withhold from newspapers that disregard the ordinary practices of this House the privileges which they enjoy of admission to the House and to the Lobby.
  MR. SPEAKER: We should consider rather the source from which the communication originally came. The newspaper may not be as guilty as the person who communicates the news.

MOTION.

  BUSINESS Of THE HOUSE.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I wish to move—
  "That, for the remainder of the Session, Government business be mot interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House; and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed, and that at the conclusion of Government business each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question pat."
  I do not think it is necessary I should make any statement as to precedent. The Leader of the Opposition, I understand, assents to this Motion, which it is customary to make at some date before the expected close of a Session, when, practically speaking, the legislative work of the Session is finished. The Government do not contemplate late Sittings after this Motion has been passed. The question of the exclusion from consideration of all but Government business has been raised, and in my opinion it is desirable that Government business should be alone dealt with. I adhere to the words which I used when a similar Motion was made in 1891 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square. I said then—
  "I know the difficulty there is sometimes in distinguishing between opposed and unopposed Bills, and I think the best course to take at this late period of the Session is to lay down that no Business shall be taken except Government business. It would not be a kindness to private Members to keep this Bill in a state of suspended animation. It would be kinder both to the promoters and the opponents of the Bill that exceptional Rules should extend only to Bills brought forward by the Government, and not to private Members' Bills."
  I entirely demur to that view, and object to that exceptional proceeding for the

  1259
  closing of the Session. I think that Members should know what they have to expect and what they have not to expect, and that Members should not be kept unnecessarily waiting for Bills which may or may not come on. If this proposal be carried, there will be hardly any Government legislative business on the Paper at all, and it will be known that the business of the House is Supply. Members will then know that they can cease their attendance here for the purpose either of promoting or opposing private Members' Bills. I think that if this course he followed it will be for the convenience of all sections of the House, and that it will conduce to the greatest happiness of the greatest number. I hope, therefore, that this Resolution may be passed in the form in which it is upon the Paper.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, for the remainder of the Session, Government Business be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Orders regulating the Sittings of the House; and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed, and that at the conclusion of Government Business each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question put."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. BARTLEYremarked that the Church Patronage Bill was read a second time unanimously by the House, that it had passed through the Grand Committee, and only had now to get through the Report stage and the Third Reading. If the Government had not taken the whole time of the House the Bill would now have been disposed of. The Government had selected the Miners (Eight Hours) Bill, and had devoted two days to it at this late period of the Session. It seemed to him to be a matter of considerable hardship that the Government should forward one private Member's Bill, and refuse to do anything for a measure which had reached the position now occupied by the Church Patronage Bill. No doubt the Government had to pay a debt for the support they had received from some of their followers, and he supposed that under these circumstances they had been bound to give time for the Miners (Eight Hours) Bill. He did not wish to divide against the Motion, but he thought that some protest ought to be made against the system of favouritism the Government had adopted. The prece-
  1260
  dent which had been established was a very dangerous one, and might lead to a good deal of confusion hereafter.
  MR. WEIRsaid, he had been very badly treated indeed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the Crofters Acts (Inclusion of Leaseholders) Bill, and he wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take this Bill under his wing and pass it this Session. In 1886, when the Crofters Act passed, the Liberal Party had not sufficient backbone to assent to a clause including in its provisions small tenants who held under lease. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues knew now that this was a mistake, and he asked them why they did not rectify that mistake. The right hon. Gentleman was in the position of one who owed a 3, 6, or 12 months' bill to the Highland Members. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman pay the bill so as to make things square? He (Mr. Weir) did not think the right hon. Gentleman was taking a straight or an honourable course in regard to the crofters, and he hoped he would avail himself of this opportunity of doing so. Everybody was anxious to get away for his holiday; but the right hon. Gentleman's holiday might be delayed if he did not promise to pass the Bill, unless he was going to flee from the House and the post of duty.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed great kindness towards all private Members' Bills, but there was such a thing as killing a Bill with kindness. The Bill to repeal the Crimes Act passed its Second Reading by a majority of 60, but the Government afterwards took away from private Members 10 or 12 Wednesdays, on any one of which the Bill might have been discussed in Committee. The Government had given facilities for the discussion of the Eight Hours Bill. He (Colonel Nolan) had supported the Bill, but he must say that the next time the Government favoured one Bill to the exclusion of another, they ought to know whether Members had made up their minds to support that Bill. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to favour any Bill, he ought to have favoured the Repeal of the Crimes Act Bill. He (Colonel Nolan) hoped the Government would grant an

  1261
  Autumn Session in order to pass this Bill, and perhaps to pass a second time the Bill which the House of Lords threw out the other day. This year three or four private Members' Bills had passed their Second Reading, but the only one of them that had got through Committee was the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Bill. If the Government would promise that the Bill for the repeal of the Crimes Act should be included in the Queen's Speech next year lie would be satisfied.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he should feel bound to divide upon the Motion. There was a coalition between the two Front Benches, and whenever he saw that he thought it was the duty of private Members to vote against it. During the last two Sessions almost every hour of the time usually given to private Members had been appropriated for Government Business, and now the Government absolutely proposed to take away the last chance private Members had of passing their Bills. He quite admitted that where a Bill was seriously opposed, as the Church Patronage Bill and the Criminal Law Repeal Hill were, there was a great deal to be said for the Government proposal, but there were Bills and Hills. Ho had a Bill which had passed its Second Reading not by a, majority of 60, but without a Division at all. Its object was to enable women to become Poor Law Guardians in Ireland as they could in England and Scotland. The Government were destroying all chance of passing this Bill, and he felt bound to protest against the attack which was being made upon the rights of private Members.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. Friend who has just sat down has stated with perfect truth that in this matter there is an agreement between the two Front Benches. He says that when he sees the two Front Benches form such an unholy alliance he and other non-official or ex-official Members ought to band together to resist our oppressive proceedings. I would ask hint whether there is any agreement among the non-official Members with regard to any single proposal that is made? My hon. Friend desires to sec passed a Hill which I think is a very excellent measure, but one upon which there is not a universal agreement.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Only one Member objects to it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If we were to propose to allow the hon. Member's Bill to be discussed and were to put aside the Bills of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley), the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Nolan), and the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Weir), all those gentlemen would go into the Lobby against him. The truth is, that on these occasions every Member who has a Bill which he believes in is anxious to get it passed, but the House at large is not at all prepared to give any Member exceptional privileges. That being so, it is evident that we must cither give everybody equal privileges or deprive everybody of all privileges. There is one good reason for not giving everybody equal privileges, and that is, that if we did so we should never get a holiday at all. I think the two Front Benches are quite as ready to do their work as any other Member, and even the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose holidays are, I understand, to be curtailed, has given us the advantage of his advice and guidance through a very long and laborious Session. The question is not whether the Government have managed their business well in the past, but whether we can manage it in the future so as to secure the most convenience to the general body. It surely must be obvious to private Members that you cannot give special privileges to one class or one county, or one Member, which you are not prepared to extend to all Members.
  MR. WEIR: All the Highland counties want the Crofters Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not possible to give to one district, or to one county, or to one Member the privileges which you will not extend to every other district, and county, and Member. If yon give such privileges this Session would not only be not drawing to a close, but would hardly have begun its infant career. I do not wish to turn my eyes to the past, but to look simply to the future, and to see how the few remaining days of the Session can be best spent for the general convenience of the House. I shall most cordially support the Leader of the House when he follows the invariable practice of all

  1263
  his predecessors at this stage of the Session, and moves a Resolution which has been on every similar occasion found to embody principles which are intended to further the general convenience of all Members, to whatever Party they belong or whatever interest they may represent.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: With the indulgence of the House I should like to say a few words in reply. It is said that owing to the Government having taken a very large portion of the time of the House private Members have not had the opportunity of passing their Bills into law. Well, I hold in my hand a list of nearly 20 Bills that have been passed this Session by private Members, and I would draw attention to the number of Scotch measures that there are amongst them. The list comprises the Burgh Police (Scotland) Bill, the Charitable Trusts Amendment Bill, the Chimney Sweepers' Bill, the County Councils Association (Scotland) Bill, the Fishery Boards (Scotland) Bill, the Heritable Securities (Scotland) Bill, the Industrial and Provident Societies Bill, the Industrial Schools Bill, the Injured Animals Bill, the Locomotive Threshing Engines Bill, the Music and Dancing Licences Bill, the Outdoor Relief (Friendly Societies) Bill, the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Bill, the Public Libraries (Scotland) Bill, the Solicitors (Examination) Bill, the Uniforms Bill, the Wild Birds' Protection Bill, and the Public Libraries (Ireland) Bill. It will be seen, therefore, that private Members have not been entirely excluded from successful legislation this Session.
  DR. CLARKsaid, the Bills mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman were those which had been passed after 12 o'clock, and they were unopposed Bills of very little importance. He should vote against the Motion. He had noticed that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was the only gentleman present who had cheered the Chancellor of the Exchequer during his statement. He had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) when again he had a seat on the Treasury Bench would go one better than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and would move a similar Motion to this a month or two earlier. By-and-bye Members would meet at Westminster to witness a game at chess played
  1264
  by a few gentlemen on the Front Benches, the non-official Members acting as the living pawns, whose duty would be merely to move through the Lobbies. He objected strongly to the course pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he intended to move a reduction of his salary in Committee of Supply. The Crofters (Leaseholders) Bill, of which he (Dr. Clark) had charge, was merely the first clause of the Government Bill that was withdrawn a few days ago. Its object was sanctioned last Session, and had been sanctioned again this Session. The object was to admit 300 or 400 poor farmers to the benefits of the Crofters Act, from which they had hitherto been excluded because they were leaseholders. He had been very hard upon landlords; but he must say that, as far as the Crofters Act were concerned, the great bulk of the Tory landlords in the Highlands had acted most generously in bringing these poor leaseholders under the Acts. There were, however, Liberal landlords who had not done so. In his county the Liberal landlord was a rack-renter, and yet the Government would not give oven five minutes to pass a Bill for the relief of these poor people. They made promises, but never carried them out. The result would be that if the Government did bring in a Rill the men who would have been benefited by it would be bankrupt, and would be away to America. He objected to the Motion on another ground—namely, the humbugging—if he might use the phrase—of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, having promised at the beginning of the Session that he would appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the financial relations between Scotland and England, had failed to redeem that promise. Not a single Scotch Estimate had been taken this year. Never had the Scotch Votes been in this position before. He was not astonished at the Leader of the Opposition agreeing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the present occasion, because he had always noticed that when any bad work was to be done the Tories in Opposition got it done by a Liberal or Whig Minister, and then subsequently, when the Tories were in power, the wedge was driven home. Upon this and every similar occasion he would vote against such a Motion.
  SIR A. ROLLITsaid, there had been a good deal of censure applied to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, some of which he thought the right hon. Gentleman heartily deserved. There was one point upon which he would press the right hon. Gentleman, and that was as to the qualification concerning the Twelve o'Clock Rule. He hoped they would not greatly exceed that hour. He believed the House was disposed to agree to the general principle of not doing much contentious business after 12 o'clock. His own experience led him to believe that when business of that character was dealt with it was seldom done well, and that time would be saved by adjourning to the following day. The time had come when an unofficial Member could not possibly pass a Bill through the House if it met with any opposition whatever. After 12 o'clock something might be done; but at the end of the Session the whole time of the House was taken, and Bills which bad been in progress were destroyed. That was, in his opinion, simply a great waste of public time. He should, therefore, oppose the Motion on principle. It was urged by the two Front Benches that this course had always been adopted at a certain period, and private Members were now making a protest, because they wished to prevent it, if possible, in the future. But he might remind the right hon. Gentleman that some qualification of that had been allowed, because the practice had been—at any rate in some cases where non-contentious Bills existed on the Order Taper which promised advantage to the State—to allow them to be "starred," and he himself hail to acknowledge considerable courtesy in that direction. But the chief purpose for which he rose was to say that he believed the reason why this time was wasted, and why these measures were prevented from becoming law was the faulty procedure of the House, and he also believed that there was a rising current of opinion to that effect. There were two sources of waste of time—the destruction of a great deal of legislation that had been carried almost to maturity, and the constant Motions to take further time. When they had nearly done their work it should be carried over to the following Session. A strong current of opinion
  1266
  was rising in that direction, and he hoped that when the matter was brought before the House next Session, which it would be from both sides, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would think that it was time to reconsider the procedure of the House, with a view to adapting it to modern requirements and to avoiding the further endangering of our Parliamentary institutions.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, the Motion resolved itself into two branches, one of which was of use to the Government and the other of no use, and being of no use it made private Members "poor indeed." The Leader of the Opposition bad said that this was a course which had been invariably taken by the Leader of the House and his predecessors. He ventured to say that they were now asked to agree to a course never taken before—namely, that the Speaker should leave the Chair without Question put immediately after Government business had been disposed of. This kind of Resolution began with the new Rules of 1887. Then the practice was towards the end of the Session, for Mr. Smith, after the Government business was disposed of, to move the adjournment of the House. Now, however, an important departure had been made under the advice of the authorities of the House, who were always watching for an opportunity to restrict the rights of private Members, and the Government now proposed to take away from them even the right of making a few observations on the Motion for the Adjournment. Their rights as private Members were to be further curtailed. That was a course that had never been taken before, and he believed if any precedent could be shown for it it was not three years old. With what object was this course being taken? All the Government wanted was to go on after 12 o'clock with their business, and when they had got that right, why should they seek to deprive the Irish Members of the right of going on after 12 o'clock; and again, if any emergency arose, why should they not be afforded the opportunity of making a few observations on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, which sometimes was an important matter? If any precedent could be found for this Motion he would be glad to see it, and he

  1267
  respectfully submitted to the Government that they ought to be satisfied to have the Motion passed down to the word "opposed," and allow the remainder to be omitted. That would concede to the Government everything they desired. Of course, it would be very unfair to proceed with Bills that were sprung on the House because of Government business collapsing suddenly; but he thought a Motion to deprive private Members of the right of proceeding with Unopposed Business after 12 o'clock was a very strong order, and that it was still more stringent to say that the Speaker should leave the Chair without Question put. He thought this proposed invasion of the rights of private Members, that the Speaker should leave the Chair without Question put, was one which should be opposed by all sections of the House. He regarded this Motion as another blow struck at the privileges of private Members by the authorities of the House.
  MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he heartily agreed with the remarks made by his hon. and learned Friend opposite. The Government ought to be allowed to go on with their business after 12 o'clock, but they ought not to take away all the opportunities of private Members. Both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the Opposition seemed to make a great point with reference to absent Members. Why should they do so? Surely Members who were away on holiday were neglecting their duties here and ought not to be considered; Members staying here doing the work of the country were those who ought to be considered. If a Division was taken, he should go into the Lobby against the Motion, because he always objected to an agreement between the two Front Benches. He rose more particularly to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intended to force through the Draft Agreement with the National Telephone Company. So long ago as last November the Postmaster General promised that a copy of the Draft should be circulated before the Government agreed to it, not only amongst Members but amongst the Municipalities of the country, so that there might be ample opportunity of considering it. If the Agreement had been concluded,
  1268
  it would be a distinct breach of faith. Sir J. Hutton, Chairman of the London County Council, attended at the House of Commons yesterday, and told him that it would be utterly impossible for him to get the Council together to consider that Agreement. The Council was one of the parties to whom the promise was made. The latter part of the Resolution would still further restrict their rights in regard to the bringing on of this Agreement, and therefore he had additional ground for complaint. He was bound to say candidly to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, unless he would agree to put off the consideration of this Agreement until next Session, his wheels would drag heavily through the Estimates. This House ought to jealously watch Company promoters, and therefore he had a right to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give them the reasonable time they required, and that he would not allow it to be said of the Government that they distinctly broke a pledge given to the municipal institutions of the country.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: With reference to the question raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth, will he allow me to read to him the Resolution which was agreed to without a Division about the same period before the end of the Session of 1892? It was as follows:—
  "That, for the remainder of the Session, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House each day at the conclusion of Government business without Question put."
  With regard to what has been said by the Members for Peterborough, Ross, and Caithness, all I have to say is that if they disapprove so entirely of my conduct in the regulation and the furthering of the business of this House, it is perfectly within their power to dismiss me from the situation which I hold and put somebody in my place who will conduct the business of the House in a manner more to their satisfaction.
  MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he would like to be allowed to explain that he had said nothing about the right hon. Gentleman's conduct of the Business of the House. All he asked about was the Agreement with the National Telephone Company.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: We will consider that matter, and we will not attempt

  1269
  to press the agreement at present if we find that there is a well-founded opposition to it.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he thought it was only right that a protest should be made against the manner in which Supply had been treated. They found that almost every Vote that had to be taken would have to be discussed under the pressure of the Rule they were about to have, and in this attenuated House. He hoped the precedent of the Government would not be followed. The House had just reason to complain that they had not had earlier in the Session a fair and reasonable opportunity of dealing with the important questions that arose on the Estimates.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS&c.)said, he wished to point out, in answer to the protest made by the promoters of the Church Patronage Bill, that the loss of that Bill was due in a great measure to the conduct of those hon. Gentlemen in connection with the Places of Worship Enfranchisement Bill, which, having been read a second time without a Division in this House, was subsequently massacred by them.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTasked whether, if the Motion was carried, it would prevent any discussion on the last day of the Session on questions which hon. Members might wish to raise with reference to the conduct of business during the Session?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: No, Sir; it did not last Session, for that was the only occasion on which I ever made a speech in this House before breakfast at 10 o'clock in the morning, in answer to a question raised by a colleague of the hon. Gentleman, one of the Members for Sheffield.
  SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, that the Appropriation Bill would afford hon. Members ample opportunity to raise any questions they might desire to raise. He agreed entirely with the remarks of his hon. Friend opposite, the Member for South Islington; but on this occasion he thought the Motion of the Government was reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
  MR. BENNsaid, he desired to associate himself with the protest made by his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough with reference to the National Telephone
  1270
  Company agreement. He was glad to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if he found a feeling adverse to that agreement he would defer the consideration of it. That was a very different statement to that made by the Postmaster General earlier in the evening. The feeling in the London County Council was very strong upon this question. They strongly objected to the absence of opportunity for examining its provisions.
  MR. A. MORLEYsaid, he would undertake to see the Chairman of the London County Council, and if he understood that there was a serious objection to the agreement taken he would reconsider the matter.
  MR. BENNsaid, the Chairman of the London County Council had gone for his holidays, and he and his hon. Friend the Member for Shorediteh and others represented the feeling of the Council.
  MR. COHENsaid, that, so far as he knew, there had been no expression of opinion by the County Council, nor was he aware that the Chairman possessed any authority to delegate the expression of the opinion of the Council to any Member or Members of the House of Commons who happened to be members of the Council.
  MR. A. MORLEYsaid, that if any Members of the House who were also members of the Loudon County Council would see him afterwards they might discuss the matter.
  MR. STOREYsaid, that many large Municipalities would be affected by this agreement, and past experience had taught them that they should not accept what the Government and the Company had agreed to. They desired ample time to examine the agreement which had been made, and he himself would regard it as an evasion if the Government attempted to get consent to this agreement without giving to all the Municipalities of the country ample time to examine it.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,)said, he understood there was a general feeling that this agreement should be postponed, and under the circumstances he would assent to that course.
  MR. J. STUARTsaid, that the conversation that had taken place showed the difficulty of

  1271
  bringing the matter forward at a time when the Municipalities were not easily reached.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 130; Noes 33.—(Division List, No. 233.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.

    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): There is a difference between the modes of presenting the English and the Indian Budgets. The English Budget deals with the income and expenditure of the year which has closed? and the estimated income and expenditure of the future year. But that has not boon the practice with reference to the Indian Budget, nor can we alter that fact. Although the last financial year ended on March 31, 1894, accounts have to be collected and examined from upwards of 1,000 treasuries and sub-treasuries, from 500 civil and military districts, and from all the Railway Companies, all the Municipalities, and all the District Boards. These accounts have all to be checked, and involve many transactions, all of which have to be examined and audited before the accounts for the year can be finally closed; the effect of this is that, although the financial year closed in March, the real position of that financial year cannot be ascertained until the end of the calendar year—namely, December 31. Hence we have this practice: that in considering the Indian Budget we consider three years—the year the accounts of which have been closed and audited, the revised Estimates of the last financial year, and the Budget proposals of the coming year. Therefore, I ask the Committee to-night to consider the income and expenditure for the year ending March 31, 1893, which is now finally closed. I will then say a very few words on the Estimates for the year ending March 31, 1894; and next submit to the Committee the proposals of the Indian Government with reference to the income and expenditure of the current financial year, which will end on March 31, 1895. I deal, therefore, first with the closed
    1272
    year of 1893. The gross income of that year was Rx.90,172,000. I leave out the figures below 1,000 for the sake of simplicity. The expenditure of the year was Rx.91,005,000, which closed, therefore, with a deficit of Rx.833,412. Those are very large figures, ninety millions of revenue, ninety millions of expenditure, and I have observed a tendency in speeches and also in literature to describe the taxation of India as representing something like Rx.90,000,000, and the expenditure of India as equalling that very large figure. This gross revenue and expenditure are very different things from the real revenue and real expenditure of India. In the gross revenue are included the entire receipts, and in the gross expenditure the entire expenditure of the whole railway system of India, the whole of the canal system and of the irrigation works, and a variety of other items which have no connection, on the one hand, with taxation, or, on the other hand, with Government expenditure as we understand it here. Some of the large undertakings I have mentioned are carried on at a profit, and some at a loss, by the Government of India. We will, therefore, pass at once from gross revenue to net revenue, and from gross expenditure to net expenditure. The Government of India regards net expenditure upon very much the same lines on which this country for a great many years regarded it—namely, it deducts the cost of collection from the revenue. I believe it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian who altered that practice, and introduced as an item of expenditure in this country the cost of collectiong the revenue. That is a practice which I think is a sound and economical one. I think that the collection of revenue is as much a part of the expenditure of the Government as any other expenditure in which it indulges, and perhaps there is often as much room for economical criticism in reference to expenses of collection as to any other question. In the Return of Net Income and Expenditure for 10 years that I have presented to the House I have not allowed that deduction; I have there treated the produce of the main heads of revenue as the net income of India; but now have further to reduce that net income by the cost of collection. Therefore, in the year just

    1273
    passed there is a discrepancy between the two statements of something like Rx.8,000,000 or Rx.9,000,000, the cost of collection. I thought it would very much confuse the Committee if I endeavoured to introduce a new plan, and therefore I have followed the plan of my predecessors, and it is followed in the statements of the Government of India, and in my Explanatory Memorandum in dealing with the net revenue and net expenditure. I wish the Committee to understand that net revenue is after deducting the cost of collection, and that net expenditure does not include the cost of collection. Treating in this manner the figures of the net income and net expenditure, the nut revenue of India in the year 1893 was Rx.51,606,000. The estimate which was made when the Budget was produced for that year was Rx.49,582,000, showing an in crease of revenue of something like Rx.2,024,000. In considering this revenue I should like to deal with the revenue of India in detail, and I think it is better to deal with it on the figures of 1893; there is little variation in 1894, and there is not much variation in our estimate for 1895. I think it will promote our convenience if Intake whatever remarks I have to make upon the revenue of India upon this closed account of 1893. This revenue of Rx.51,606,000 arises from four sources, but all these sources are not taxation. India, like England, has a tax revenue and a non-tax revenue, and the Rx.51,606,000 must not, cannot, and ought not to be taken as any estimate of the taxation of the people of India, as I shall endeavour to show a little further on. These four sources are—first, the land revenue, with which I associate the sum raised from the working of the forests and the tributes from the native States; secondly, opium; thirdly, pure taxation: and to these I have added, in my 10 years' statement, a fourth, the commercial services, some of which, certainly in years past, have been carried on at a very considerable profit. I am sorry to say that, owing to a cause I shall have to refer to presently —namely, the depreciation in the value of the rupee—that profit has been turned into a debit charge. But, as in this country, the Post Office, the Telegraph, the Mint, and various other services, we
    1274
    find generally produce a profit; there they sometimes produce a profit and sometimes a loss; but, at all events, they form a distinct item of revenue. The first item of the revenue is the land revenue, which in 1893 produced Rx.20,914,000. There are also profits on forests, Rx.724,000, and tributes, Rx.790,000. The first question I have to ask myself is whether, in estimating the burden of taxation in India, we are to include this sum of Rx.22,428,000 net, which, after deducting assignments, is Rx.2,5,719,000 gross; whether we are to regard that as part of the taxation of the people, or as a revenue which is not derived from taxation properly so-called. A great deal of the calculations which are made with reference to the taxation of India will depend upon the category in which this very large sum is placed. I gathered from the remarks of the hon. Member for Flintshire in the Debate yesterday, that he inclines to the view that this is an item of taxation, and not to be included as a non-tax revenue. The hon. Member for Banffshire stated yesterday that upon this question I gave the official view, that I looked through official spectacles, and presented to the House the views which were given to me. I am going to quote two authorities as to the proper position of this land revenue. They certainly are authorities of the first rank and standing in any question of political economy, and they are also two statesmen well known to have a very great sympathy with the bulk of the people of India, and who would not, I am sure, have strained a point as against any view which should be taken in favour of the people as against the Government. The two authorities I am going to quote are Mr. John Stuart Mill and Mr. Fawcett, and I think the Committee will admit they are authorities who can speak with decision upon a question of this sort. Mr. Mill said—
    "A large portion of the revenue of India consists of the rent of land. So far as this resource extends in any country, the public necessities of the country may be said to be provided for at no expense to the people at large. Where the original right of the State to the land of the country has been reserved, am! its natural— but no more than natural—rents made available to meet the public expenditure, the people-may lie said to be so far untaxed; because the Government only takes from them as a landlord.… It is of course, essential that the demand of revenue should be kept within the limits of a fair rent. Under the native Govern-

    1275
    ments, and in the earlier periods of our own, this limit was often exceeded. But, under the British rule, in every instance in which the fact of excessive assessment was proved by large outstanding balances and increased difficulty of realisation, the Government has, when the fact was ascertained, taken measures for reducing the assessment."
    Mr. Fawcett, writing a great many years after Mill, says—
    "The Government in India exercises over a great portion of the soil the same rights of pro perty as those which an English landlord exercises over his own estate. The Government in India takes the place of individual landlords, and cultivators of the soil rent their land from Government instead of from private land holders… As far as the cultivators of the soil are concerned, it can be no matter of consequence whatever to them whether they pay a Land Tax to the Government or whether they pay rent to private landholders. Hence a Land Tax is no harder upon the cultivator, nor does his impost cause any loss to the rest of the community. It therefore follows that a Land Tax, so long as it does not exceed a rack-rent, cannot increase the price of products raised from land, for those who grow products would not sell them cheaper, if they paid rent to a private landlord instead of paying the same amount to the Government in the form of a Land Tax. A land tax consequently differs from all other taxes, for it possesses the excellent quality of providing a large revenue for the State without diminishing the wealth of any class of the community. Those, therefore, are completely in error
    —and I recommend this to my hon. Friend behind me—
    who quote the aggregate amount of taxation which is raised in India in order to prove how heavily the people of that country are taxed. At least £20,000,000 per annum is obtained in India by the Land Tax, but it would be as unreasonable to consider this amount as a burden laid upon the people, as it would be to consider that the whole rent which is paid to English landlords in this country is an impost levied on the cultivators of the soil."
    In India they nationalised the land centuries ago. The land belongs to the State, and the cultivators of the land pay a certain rent in respect of their tenancies. Whether that rent is an excessive rent or a moderate rent is, of course, a question on which discussion may arise, and on which different opinions may he expressed. Putting it generally, there are 'two principal assessments in India—the permanent settlement which was made 100 years ago by Lord Cornwallis in Bengal, and which then and for ever fixed the sum the tenants were to pay, and temporary settlements made once in 30 years which have prevailed for a long series of years, and under which the conditions of the laud are considered, the cultivated area is ascertained, the price of pro-
    1276
    duce is duly recorded, and the rent is estimated for a period of 30 years. No increase of rent is allowed on improvements made by the tenant himself or improvements arising from expenditure of private money. With regard to the settlement in Bengal, that settlement was fixed 100 years ago at about £3,250,000, and that represented a fair rent then to be paid for the land and its produce. The gross annual rental now received by the landlord is nearly £15,000,000. Hardly any of this increase is due to the action of the zemindars. It has arisen from the increased population, from the industry of the ryots, from the rise in prices, and to a great extent from the money expended by the State for the roads and railways. Now, Sir, the House will see what the position of the Government would be if that settlement had never been made. That large unearned increase of many millions has not gone into the pockets of the cultivator of the soil, but has been received by the zemindars. No advantage has been derived by the ryots from the increased value of the land. That is a system which, as the hon. Member for Kingston has pointed out, is indefensible and is a great loss to the people of India. The Government of India are, I think, to be congratulated that in three-fourths of the districts of India that system does not now prevail. The position of affairs in Bengal has been for years a serious injustice — I might use a stronger word—to the tenants. The tenants have been rack-rented; the zemindars have paid the rent to which I alluded just now to the Government, and have done pretty much what they liked as to the mode of dealing with their tenants. The protection given to tenants in other parts of India practically ceased to exist in Bengal. Inquiry after inquiry by Governor General after Governor General took place upon the question, and eventually the Bengal Tenancy Act was passed in 1885, which recognised the rights of the tenants so far as the s future was concerned. The Bill was very much upon the lines of Bills, referring to Irish tenants. The measure was passed into law eight or nine years ago, and it is in carrying out that measure, and in completing the Cadastral I Survey of a part of Bengal—namely, I Behar—that difficulty has arisen. The difficulty has, however, I think, been greatly exaggerated, and I think we

    1277
    may expect that a decision will be arrived at before long which will give satisfaction both to the tenants of Behar and to the zemindars. The Government have taken upon themselves a larger share of the cost of the survey than was originally contemplated, and I do not believe that any further complaints will now be made. But before I pass from Behar I will give a singular illustration of the unwisdom of this settlement. In Behar, where the land revenue was settled on the lowest scale 100 years ago, and where it now falls at the rate of about 10 annas per acre of cultivated land, the routs paid by the cultivators are higher, the pressure on the ryots is heavier, and the condition of the smaller ryots is poorer, than they are in other Provinces where the land revenue is periodically re-settled, and where the average incidence per acre is from 30 to 35 annas. Passing from this local question, I may say generally that the instructions to the officers of the Government are what I mentioned yesterday, that they are to apportion rents with justice and with moderation. I will now give the House figures showing how the amount of the revenue bears upon the condition of the people, taking India as a whole. The gross area of British India now under cultivation is estimated at 196,000,000 acres, and the gross rent paid to the Government in 1891–95 at Rx.25,703,600. Of this cultivated area nearly 13 per cent, bears two or more crops a year. No pasture or grass land is reckoned as cultivated. The total land revenue (Rx.25,703,000) on the total area of cultivated laud — apart from fallows and grass lands—falls at an average rate of 1. 31 rupees per cultivated acre all over India. The average incidence of laud revenue varies in the different Provinces from 0. 43 of a rupee per cultivated acre in the Central Provinces to 2. 99 (or say 3) rupees per acre in Burma. In special tracts and villages in arid parts of the Deccan, or stony tracts in the Central Provinces, the land revenue is as low as two annas (one-eighth of a rupee) per acre; whereas in town lots in the Calcutta suburbs the rate may sometimes go as high as 40 rupees per acre. The gross value of all the crops is estimated to be Rx.313,500,000 a year. The laud revenue represents 8 per cent, of this value. Some authorities put the value of the crops higher, and estimate
    1278
    the total land revenue at 6 per cent, of the gross yield. But the figure taken above is moderate and safe. This estimate takes no account of grass and pasture lands, or of the 75,500,000 head of greater cattle and 30,500,000 head of lesser cattle. The rent is entirely raised upon arable or agricultural land. As compared with the gross value of the crops in India, this revenue cannot be considered excessive. The next item of revenue which I submit to the House as coming within the non-tax revenue is the revenue derived from opium. I am not now going to deal with the merits or demerits of this opium question. The whole question is being considered by a competent and impartial Royal Commission, and I think that both in India and in England the Report of that Commission will be awaited with a great deal of interest, as we shall then have before us the facts of that complicated controversy upon which we shall be able perhaps to form a correct opinion. Speaking now simply as the Finance Minister, I have to tell the House that in 1893 the gross revenue from opium produced Rx.7,993,000. In the preceding year it produced Rx.8,012,000, there being therefore a decrease. I said just now that that was not a tax revenue falling upon the people of India. It is a tax falling upon people who buy the opium from India. The tax upon opium consumed in India forms part of the Excise revenue, and forms no part of the opium revenue. The particular revenue from opium arises from two sources: the taxation of opium which is produced in the native States, and which, passing through Bombay, is charged with a certain pass duty, and the profit which accrues to the Indian Government from the monopoly which they have in the manufacture of opium. Now I come to what I call taxation in the strict sense of the word, and I first take the taxation in regard to salt. It was discussed yesterday, and I am not going to quarrel with its description as a severe tax. That tax produced in 1893 Rx.8,167,000 net. Now, this duty has been raised in the past history of India on all salt, either imported into the country or manufactured in India. There was a great variety in the rates which prevailed, but they eventually settled down to 2 rupees for every 821bs. of salt. But in 1888,

    1279
    owing to financial exigencies, the taxation was raised to 2½ rupees upon every 821bs. At that time great fear was expressed that the imposition of this duty would tend to decrease the consumption, which it was said — and I quite agree—would be a great calamity to the people. If the result of that taxation bad been to produce such a consequence, it would, in my opinion, have been much to be deprecated. Now, the figures are as follows: —In 1888, when the duty was raised from 2 rupees to 2½ rupees, the consumption in India was 31,474,000 maunds; in the following year, 33,486,000; in 1890, 33,722,000; in the next year, 34,851,000; and in the year which I am now discussing, 35,451,000. In the last 10 years there has been an increase in the consumption of 18 per cent., whilst the population of India has only advanced 11 per cent. Now, this consumption works out at 10¾lbs. per head. It varies in different Provinces, in some being as much as 18¾lbs. per head, and in some so low as 81bs. per head, but as showing the actual burden of the tax upon the people of India I take the average consumption at l0¾lbs. per head. Taking the average Indian family at five members the taxation would fall at the rate of 1½ rupees per annum per family, or five annas per head. Do not let me be misunderstood as in any way taking an optimistic view of the tax. Nothing would please me better than to be able to tell the House that the Indian Government were in a position to abolish this tax. I think it would be a very great boon to the people of India to get rid of this tax altogether, but, at the same time, however strong our feeling may be, we must not forget that there is no tax in India upon tobacco or sugar, and that this is practically the only tax which the Indian peasant need pay, unless he indulges in spirits and narcotics. This is practically the only tax levied upon a large proportion of the people of India, and I think we may congratulate ourselves on the encouraging fact that the consumption of salt has not decreased, but has increased. Well, the next item is that coming under the head of stamps. That is very much the same class of taxation as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is familiar with here. This item produced some Ex.4,254,000 net, a very slight increase upon the preceding year. I may
    1280
    observe here that Death Duties, Estate Duties, and Legacy Duties in India are a mine of future revenue still unexplored. The next item is Excise. The Excise Duty in India is raised by duties upon and licences to sell intoxicating liquors. My hon. Friend the Member for Flintshire complained very strongly of the working of the Excise Duties. He made some very strong charges against the collectors of this revenue in India as to the mode in which the tax was collected. Well, Sir, Drink Duties are looked at from two points of view—one from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and one from the moralist's point of view. I think the desire of every right-minded man is that this revenue should be as high as possible in order to check consumption, and the difficult dividing line of excessive or not sufficient taxation is where smuggling would begin and greater evils would follow. This revenue has considerably increased in the course of the last few years. In 1889 it reached Ex.4,679,000, and now it is Ex.5,210,000. I am informed that this increase has arisen from improved Excise administration. The amount of taxation has very much increased in the last few years, and there has been a great reduction in the use of illicit intoxicants. The licences—and the bulk of the Revenue comes from them—are for spirits made, spirits imported, certain fermented drinks, opium, and narcotics. Ten years ago the total number of shops of all kinds licensed for alcohol and opium was 115,637. Last year the total licences were 102,991, showing a decrease of something like 12,000. The drink bill of the United Kingdom gives a total revenue of £35,000,000 from a population of 39,000,000. This is practically a drink revenue 55^ times greater per head of population than the Revenue raised in India. The number of licences has been, as I have shown already, reduced, and, whereas we find that in England there is a shop licensed to sell intoxicating liquors for every 166 of the population, there is in India a licensed shop to sell these liquors and for opium for every 2,148 of the population. I very much wish my hon. Friend the Member for Cumberland was here, that he might see that, in the darkness of India, there are some gleams of light which he would like to see extended to England. With reference to my hon. Friend's

    1281
    statement as to the policy of the Excise collectors in raising this revenue, and the policy of the Government of India, I can only repeat to the House Lord Cross's Despatch upon this question, which expresses the views of the Home Government, and I believe the views of the Indian Government. He says—
    "I lay down this principle—that any extension of the habit of drinking among the Indian populations is to be discouraged; that the tax on spirits and liquors should be as high as may be possible without giving rise to illicit methods of making and selling liquors; and that, subject to these considerations, a maximum Revenue should be raised from a minimum consumption of intoxicating liquors."
    My hon. Friend stated yesterday that he believed that the collectors of this class of revenue were promoted or were degraded according to the amount they received from the population. Well, I have made inquiries into this mutter, and I am informed by the India Office that they have no record of any case of a collector having been punished or degraded by reason of bringing in a decreased Excise Revenue. On the contrary, those collectors where the consumption is restricted are the collectors approved by the Government and promoted. I think my hon. Friend, upon consideration, will see that there is no foundation for the charge which, no doubt, he made under a false impression. While talking upon this temperance question, I am rather tempted to make one allusion to our European subjects in India as distinct from the people of India. Of course, the people in whom we are most anxious to encourage temperate habits are the soldiers, to whom drink is the greatest temptation and the greatest ruin. Now, that very distinguished officer, Sir George White, now Commander-in-Chief in India, has just been making a speech dealing with this question. He called the attention of the public to the fact that 22,000 men now belong to the Army Temperance Society, and he worked out these very interesting figures: that out of 1,150 regimental Courts Martial which sat in India last year only 39 sat to try members of the Army Temperance Society; and that if the members of the Society had their fair share of military offences they would have contributed 796 more offenders than they actually did to the total number tried by Court Martial In 1893. Sir George White went on to show how very much the health of the
    1282
    Army in India was improved by abstention from alcoholic liquors, and that the Returns from the hospitals proved this to be the case. I hope I have explained that there is no reason to fear that any stimulus to excessive consumption of intoxicants is given.
    MR. A. O'CONNOR: I shall be glad if the right hon. Gentleman can tell mo whether the licences are not sold by auction?
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am not able to answer that question offhand. The next item is the Customs. Last year they were practically a little less, but not to an amount worth noticing. This year they produce Rx.1,418,000 net. These duties are on arms, liquors, opium, and petroleum, and there is an Export Duty on rice. Practically, the Export Duty on rice is no taxation on the people of India., because it is paid by the consumers. It is the same as that levied in Siam and Cochin China. The Income Tax last year produced Rx.1,640,000 net as against Rx.1,608,000 in the preceding year. That tax has been represented as a very safe index of the poverty of India. My hon. Friend told the House what 1d. would produce in India, and what it would produce in England. Of course, the disproportion is something appalling, oven if you throw out of consideration the accumulated wealth of England, and simply treat the two countries on parallel Hues. But the incidence of this taxation in India and England is widely different, and from one you cannot draw a conclusion as to the other. In India the tax is paid by a limited class of the population. Practically it is paid on salaries, pensions, Companies' income, and, of course, on the income of ordinary trades and professions. But the great trade of India—the trade by which India lives, from which it draws the bulk of its income, and upon which depends entirely its prosperity—is the trade of agriculture. There is no Income Tax on the ownership of land, on the occupation of land, or on the sale of the produce of the laud. When you strike out that enormous item you see that you cannot draw a parallel with reference to England. Again, when an Englishman saves money he invests it, and it becomes an Income Tax-bearing property. But those hoarded millions in India—hoards of gold and silver of which the amount is

    1283
    not known, and of which there are no reliable statistics, except those as to the amount which has been absorbed—those hoards which must represent some hundreds of millions sterling, pay no Income Tax. Upon these grounds I reject the idea that any comparison can be drawn between England and India. The next item is Provincial Hates. The House will recollect that these rates are collected with and by the same agency as the Imperial Revenue. They are, after being collected, re-apportioned to the Provincial Authorities, and spent by them. They all tend to swell the amount of the general taxation of the country; but in contrasting the taxation of India with England you would have to add a great proportion of the local taxation to the English total. Last year these provincial rates produced Ex. 3,643,000, which shows a slight increase, but nothing abnormal. The last item of taxation is the registration on the transfer of land, which produced the small amount of Ex.216,000. These are the items which I have described to the House as taxation revenue. The amount in the year just closed was Rx.24,355,000, as against Rx.23,868,000 in the preceding year, or an increase of Ex.487,000, practically Ex.500,000. The commercial services form the last item I shall mention. I shall have to say something about railways when dealing with expenditure, but I may say now that there is mo income from railways, but a very-large debit charge. They were worked at a very considerable profit, but the debenture payments and the interest upon share capital have to be remitted to England, and the cost of exchange turns the profit into a loss. So far as the Post Office is concerned, last year it produced Rx.1,489,000 gross; the Telegraphs Rx.938,000, and the Mints Rx.310,000. The upshot of these statistics is that the burden of the taxation upon the people of India for the year 1893 is something like Rx.25,787,000—I have not deducted from it the cost of collection—and this gives a taxation per head of the population of one rupee two annas and six pies. The estimated net expenditure of the Budget for 1892–3 was Rx.49,435,200 as against an estimated net revenue of Rx.49,581,800, showing an estimated surplus of Rx.146,600. That estimated surplus, however, turned out to be non-existent, and the re-
    1284
    sult of a balance between the actual revenue and the actual expenditure was a deficiency of Rx.833,412, due to a very large extent to the fall in the rate of exchange. The net revenue shows an increase of Rx.2,023,881, which was duo in a great measure to the large augmentation of the net receipts from opium; but there was also a satisfactory improvement under other heads-But the increase of expenditure has wiped out the anticipated surplus and left a net deficit. Of the increase of expenditure by Rx.3,004,000 beyond the sum estimated in the Budget, nearly Rx.2,000,000 arises from exchange, leaving only Rx.1,026,000 to be explained under the various items which appear in the Statement the Committee have before them. The Budget of 1893 was based on a rate of exchange of Is. 4d., and the rate realised was rather lower than Is. 3d., so the House will see at once where a great deal of the loss occurred. The Budget Estimate of 1893–4, as revised down to the present time, shows a net revenue of Ex.50,253,000: a net expenditure of Rx.52,046,000, and a deficit of Rx.1,792,800. That is only Rx.197,700 worse than the original Budget Estimate, which estimated a deficit of Rx.1,595,100. There has been a reduction in opium, a reduction in salt revenue, and a reduction in the rates; but, on the other hand, there has been an increase in the Land Revenue, in Stamps, in Excise, and a small increase in assessed taxes. Although the revenue was more, the expenditure was also more, and that made the net deficiency more than was expected by Rx. 197,000. That is not a very satisfactory statement for 1894. But that is not the Budget now before the House, and it is not necessary that I should now go through it in detail. Notwithstanding that there were moderate increases of revenue and considerable reductions of expenditure in the year 1894, and the rate of taxation was in no way altered, the deficit of the preceding year, which was Rx.833,000, has become Rx.1,792,800, and I think I am right in saying that that deficit represents a further loss from the fall in the exchange value of the rupee. I come now, Mr. Mellor, to what is the more legitimate part of the Budget Statement—the statement for the forthcoming year, 1895. I have just told the House that the net expenditure for 1894 was Rx.52,046,000, or, in round figures,

    1285
    Rx.52,000,000. The rate of exchange for that year was a little above 1s. 2½d. In the Budget for this year it was taken in India at Is. 2d., and this reduction in the gold value of the rupee involves an increase of expenditure of Ex.1,052,600, which, owing to a slight increase in the sterling expenditure, is raised to Rx.1,053,000; and therefore, assuming the expenditure at the same rate as it was last year, instead of the Budget continuing at Rx.52,046,000, we have to deal with an expenditure of Rx.53,099,000. There are various increases and decreases in the revenue and expenditure, but they are all of small amount, and I will not trouble you with them. The result is, that I have to deal with an expenditure of Rx.53,321,000; against which I take the same basis of revenue as last year, and, allowing only for a reduction of Rx.449,000, we have a deficit of Rx.3,517,000 this year. The Committee will bear in mind that for 1893 the deficit was Rx.833,000; in 1894 Rx.1,793,000, and for 1895 it is Rx.3,517,000. The question is, how can we meet that deficit? What can we do in the way of reducing expenditure? I presume that the first duty and legitimate function of the Finance Department of a Government, when they have to face a deficit of this character, is to see what they can do in the way of reducing expenditure. They must ask themselves whether they are bound to keep up such a largo expenditure, and whether they cannot in any way reduce that expenditure in order to enable them to meet the deficit. Now I have to touch upon another thorny subject, and I must trouble the Committee with a little explanation. A discussion was raised by hon. Members yesterday upon what was called the Famine Insurance Fund. If ever words were intended to conceal the real operations of a Department, the words "Famine Insurance Fund" were successful for that purpose. The Committee must understand there is no such thing as a "Famine Insurance Fund" at all. It does not exist, and never has existed. Therefore, when complaints are made that the Government of India have appropriated money, which is sacredly set apart for such a purpose, to increase the ordinary Revenue, all I can say is that they are entirely unfounded. There are many authorities on this subject. I have here in detail the speeches which were
    1286
    made when this fund was started. I have got a summary of those speeches made by the distinguished author of the scheme himself, I will endeavour to state it in a sentence or two for the benefit of the Committee, and hon. Members will then form their own judgments as to whether my statement is correct or not. Li the year when this scheme was proposed to the Indian Council by Sir John Strachey, who was then Finance Minister, the Government had come to the conclusion that the cost of a famine coming once in 10 years represented something like Rx. 15,000,000. That calamity involved, of course, the raising by loan of a very large sum of money in order to meet that exceptional expenditure. Sir John Strachey's scheme was this: that the Budget in India should contemplate an annual surplus, or what we should call in this country a Sinking Fund, of Rx. 1,500,000, and that this fund should be devoted in the first instance to the relief of any actual famine expenditure incurred in that year; and, in the next place, that any further sum should be directly expended in the construction of unproductive railways—I mean unproductive from a commercial point of view, but works calculated to protect the country from famine—and, lastly, for the reduction of existing debt, or avoidance of debt otherwise about to be incurred, so as to form a setoff against the borrowing that might be expected in a year when famine arose. Let me read you what Sir John Strachey, the highest authority on this question, says: —
    "This policy of insurance against famine so simple in its nature has been constantly misunderstood. It has been stated that: a separate fund was constituted into which certain revenues were paid, which could only be drawn out for specified purposes. No such idea was ever entertained. The Famine Insurance Fund of which people have often talked never existed. The intention was nothing more than the annual application of surplus revenue to the extent of Rx.l,500,000 for the purposes I have described."
    Thus, whereas the Government of India had year by year been borrowing money for their railway and other works, it was not necessary that the Rx. 1,500,000 should be applied in reduction of the debt, and that another Rx. 1,500,000 should be borrowed: the one was simply a set-off against to the other. What has been done under this Famine Insurance Fund? Let me refer you to page 11 of

    1287
    my Explanatory Statement. This fund has been in operation since the year 1882, and during this period of 14 years there has been spent in famine relief Rx.304,409; upon construction of protective irrigation works Rx.1,776,863; upon construction of protective railways there has been charged under famine relief and insurance Rx. 5,482,943, and charged under revenue railway account Rx.3,186,902; and for reduction or avoidance of debt Rx.5,327,299. Therefore, even allowing for a deduction, which I am going to mention immediately, Rx.16,000,000 has been appropriated out of the income of India during the last 14 years for the purpose of preventing famine. There is one other authority I should like to quote on this question, and that is the present Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, who was himself Secretary of the Famine Commission, and who, next to Sir John Strachey, knew most about it, perhaps, of any of the men in India who had the management of it. This gentleman knows how the money was spent, and this year he, in dealing with this case, made this strong statement—
    "The calculations made by the Famine Commission showed that the provision of 20,000 miles of railway would suffice to ensure the means of sure and speedy transport of food into every part of India that is liable to be afflicted with famine."
    He proceeded to say—
    "By the operation of this system 4,896 miles of protective railway for the purposes of insurance against famine have been constructed, and we have in 15 years carried out almost all the schemes held to be necessary for the protection of the country against famine. Speaking with such authority as attaches to me as Secretary to that Commission, I do not hesitate to say that the only considerable spot in India on which I could now lay my finger as both liable to severe famine and insufficiently protected against it, is Orissa.… When the East Coast railway is finished, I believe that the work of railway extension, with the special object of famine protection, will be completed."
    Whether those opinions be sound or unsound, hon. Members will admit that, coming from Sir Charles Elliott, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, they come from a very high authority. When the Government of India are charged with having misappropriated funds intended for one purpose to another, and of having been guilty of most reprehensible conduct, I think hon. Members will say that I have proved that this is not the case. The Famine Fund is a surplus, and you
    1288
    cannot deal with a surplus until you have a surplus. This year there is no surplus revenue in India. There is no surplus of Rx.1,500,000. Therefore, if the Government had intended this year to appropriate this Rx.1,500,000, which Sir Charles Elliott says is not needed, we should not have been able to do that without putting on additional taxation.
    SIR W. WEDDERBURN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there was not for 1892–93 an amount of Rx.1,686,000, which were collected from certain assessed taxes which were specially raised for the purposes of this famine insurance?
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: My hon. Friend can discuss that when I have done my statement. I cannot admit his premises at all. This criticism which was raised yesterday the hon. Gentleman can raise again if he likes. What I have to deal with is that there is an expenditure at this moment of Rx.3,500,000 more than the revenue. Therefore, the first thing which the Finance Minister has said is, "I will stop this expenditure this year." I am sorry that that has had to be done. I should like these protective works to be carried still further; I should have liked the debt to have been paid off. The Indian Government, will provide for certain irrigation works which they know to be necessary, and they will also pay the net charge on certain protective railways, and the aggregate of these provisions will be Rx,423,800. The reduction in the amount to be expended under the head of Famine Relief and Insurance this year is, therefore, Rx.1,083,300. The next reductions are Rx.188,000 in military works, Rx.263,000 in civil works, and in special defence works Rx.135,000. The Indian Government have further called upon the Provincial Administrations to submit to a reduction of their balances. This is rather a complicated question; but, if the Committee will allow me, I will state the figures in one or two sums. I think it will be sufficient for the purposes of this Debate. In the scheme of decentralisation which is now carried on in India large portions of the Revenue are handed over to the Local Authorities, who are responsible for a large portion of the expenditure of the country. About 25 per cent, of the gross expenditure is now managed by the Local Authorities. The Indian Government requires all these Local Authorities to have a minimum

    1289
    balance. This is a wise precaution. It is to prevent extravagance and to prevent works being undertaken which the Local Authorities have not the funds to defray. They have asked the Local Authorities this year to hand over from their treasuries a sum of Rx.405,000; but the latter will still have after the appropriation Rx.2,343,000,orauexeessofRx.l,2o0,000 beyond the figure which is required as a minimum balance. Therefore, I think the Indian Finance Minister is justified in saying that the Indian Provinces must share with the Imperial Treasury the heavy burden of this terrible deficit. After all these economies, the Exchequer will be left with a deficit of Rx 1,442,000. That deficit can only be met by additional taxation, and it was decided that a Customs Duty of 5 per cent, should be levied on imports into India, with the exception of cotton goods. These duties were estimated to produce Rx.1,140,000, leaving a final deficit of Rx.302,000 for the current year. I am aware that a good number of people are of opinion that the Government ought not to have interfered with the original intention of the Indian Authorities to levy a duty on all imports into India without any exception; and that the exception of cotton goods is one which cannot be justified. We have heard, both in this House and also in another place, that this is felt to be a very great injustice by the people of India. ["Hear, hear!" from the Opposition Benches.] I should like to ask, Who is going to pay the taxes on these imports? The people of India, the consumers in India, and no one else. If I construe rightly what is passing in the minds of persons who have spoken and written on this question, it amounts to this: that this is a tax which would have been paid by the people of Lancashire, and that no corresponding burden would be paid by the people in India. Whether Import Duties are right or wrong, whatever duty you levy on cotton goods must inevitably be paid by the people who wear these cotton goods in India. The tax would therefore be a tax upon the people of India, and not upon the Lancashire manufacturer. It may, of course, affect the amount of imports by raising the price of cotton goods; but, as a matter of fact, the duty will be paid by the consumer. The one complaint of the people of Lancashire
    1290
    prior to 1879 was against protective duties being levied on their goods in favour of the native manufacturer, and Lord Salisbury in his Despatch on this | question said—
    "It is impossible to believe that under these conditions the duty can be permanently maintained. The entire acceptance of the system of Free Trade by England is incompatible with the continuance of an exception apparently so marked. Parliament, when its attention is drawn to the matter, will not allow the only remnant of Protection within the direct jurisdiction of the English Government to be a protective duty which, so far as it operates at all, is hostile to English manufacturers."
    Again, at a later date Lord Salisbury said—
    "The Import Duty on cotton manufactures is, on general principles, liable to objection as tending to operate as a protective duty in favour of the native manufacturer. The removal of this duty is of material importance both to India and to England."
    This House has by solemn Resolution declared that it will not sanction a protective duty on cotton goods. Therefore the position I have taken up is that the imposition of such a duty is a step which must not be taken until the House has had some opportunity of discussing the question. But, if this [duty is paid by the people of India, what is the position of the Government? We say that, if you are going to tax the people of India, the product of that tax must go into the treasuries of India, and that you must not tax the people of India to put money into the pockets of the manufacturers of Bombay. The broad principle of protective duties is this: that the native manufacturer raises his prices to within an appreciable distance below the protective duty, so as to have an additional profit to put into his own pocket at the expense of the consumer, and at the expense of the taxpayer. This Government is not influenced by the Lancashire vote. I repudiate on behalf of the English Government on both sides of the House the imputation that they would place the Lancashire vote before their policy on matters affecting the interests of India. Questions of this sort must be decided on higher grounds. Speaking for myself and my predecessor, Lord Kimberley, I say that our sole motive has been to prevent the imposition of a protective duty which would inflict a burden on the consumer in India, without a corresponding addition to the revenue of India. I have said all along, and I say now

    1291
    that, if the manufacturers of India are prepared to submit to a countervailing duty which will destroy the element of protection, I do not see why the Import Duty should not be imposed. I know that there are difficulties in this question; I know certain descriptions of goods are made in Lancashire and not made in India, while others are made in India and not in Lancashire; but, if there be any necessity for increasing the taxation of India, I see no reason why this tax could not be fairly and justly imposed, and at the same time deprived of any protective character, so that it shall go into the Treasury of India and not into the pockets of the manufacturers. Then no injustice would be done to the English manufacturer on the one hand or to the Indian consumer on the other. That is all I have to say on the estimated Revenue for 1891–5. The estimated expenditure of next year, after making the deductions to which I have referred, is Rx.51,245,400. The principal items in round figures are: — Interest, Rx.3,755,000; Civil Departments, Rx.13,347,000; Miscellaneous Civil Charges, Rx.4,771,000; Railway Revenue Account, Rx.2,130,000; Buildings, Roads, and Irrigation, Rx.5,306,000; Army Services and Special Defence Works, Rx.23,102,000, the net total being, as I have said, Rx.51,245,400. I want now to call attention to one fact, and that is, that of this heavy expenditure Rx.12,523,100 are due entirely to loss on exchange. I have given, on page 12 of my Explanatory Statement, a Table showing the amount of net sterling expenditure in England in recent years, the average rate at which remittances from India have been effected, and the loss on exchange. From that it appears that, going back 10 years, the loss on exchange was Rx.3,500,000. It has now risen to Rx. 12,500,000, and every decrease of a penny in the value of the rupee means an additional charge of Rx.2,400,000. There are one or two other items of expenditure with which I should like to deal, chiefly with reference to the Army and home charges. Great complaint has been made by several of my hon. Friends of the increase in the military expenditure. After the statement I made yesterday that a Committee will be appointed to examine the question of expenditure, it would
    1292
    not be prudent of me to go into a discussion which the House could only tarry on upon imperfect data. There has been a very large increase in military expenditure in India. During the last 10 years we have increased the Army in India by 10,000 European and 20,000 Native soldiers. I could tell the House, item by item, if there were time, what has been the actual expenditure; but, without going into all the details of what has been expended, I think that the House will find in the enormous sum paid for exchange, in the normal increase in ordinary expenditure, and in the addition to the Army, an explanation of the very hugely increased expenditure. With reference to home charges, as far as my experience at the India Office is concerned, though it is a short one, I find that there is as strict a scrutiny of expenditure in India, as of expenditure at home. Some hon. Member said yesterday that by a stroke of my pen I could spend £1,000,000. I could do nothing of the kind. I cannot spend £10 by a stroke of my pen. That is the one thing the Secretary of State cannot do; he cannot spend Is. without the consent of the majority of his Council. He has no power to override his Council in that matter. I can assure the House that we have put our foot resolutely down against any increased expenditure. I lately sent a strong Despatch to the Government of India protesting against any proposal for increasing salaries or establishments. We are face to face with this enormous deficit, and it is our duty to cut down expenditure its rigidly as if the same state of things arose in Downing Street. There was last year, apart from exchange, a reduction of Rx.102,000, and in 1893–4 a further reduction of Rx.424,000 in expenditure on purely military purposes. I have one word to say on the debt. The closing of the Mint and the cessation of the sale of bills compelled the Government of India to borrow money in this country for the purpose of meeting current expenditure, and in round figures we raised £1,386,000 on debentures, we raised £6,000,000 on hills, of which we have already paid off £4,000,000, and we created new Stock to the amount of £6,000,000 Three per 1 Cents. That is practically an increase in the debt of £9,386,000 in the year. That was not, however, a real increase of debt to that amount. It was debt tem-

    1293
    porarily borrowed in this country as against money lying in the Treasury of India, and it is not fair to consider that without having some regard to the balances in India. The cash balances in India in April, 1893, amounted to fix. 15,000,000. On March 1, 1894, they had increased to Rx.26,000,000. There would, no doubt, have been a loss in the transmission of that money to England, and the debt was created because it was considered unwise so to remit it. But against the liability there is a corresponding deposit in India. I will just state the exact position of the Debt at the present time. The Debt in England is £114,114,000. The Debt in India is Rx. 124,114,000. I was asked yesterday, "Why don't you borrow in silver? "Well, more than half the debt of India is a silver debt. The debt consists partly of the war debt, to which a fearful amount was added during the Mutiny, and partly of the amount due to railways and irrigation. What are our assets against that debt? The debt in India is Rx. 124,000,000, and our assets Rx.147,000,000. Thus there is actually in India a surplus of assets over liabilities. In England the Debt is £114,000,000, and the assets £65,000,000, so that there is an excess of liability in England of £49,000,000, and the net result is that there is an uncovered debt of something like Rx.25,500,000. Now, Sir, when it is considered that we are dealing with a poor country, with an enormous military and Imperial expenditure, and with a vast outlay on railways and irrigation works, I venture to say that that is not unsatisfactory. I doubt whether there is any country in Europe showing anything approaching to such an encouraging state of affairs. The next point is with reference to the closing of the Mints. That step was taken in consequence of the great depreciation in the value of the rupee and the financial difficulty in which I the Government of India was placed. It was taken upon the advice of a Committee composed of the most competent men that could be appointed to investigate such a question, who recommended the Government at home not to refuse the proposal of the Government of India to suspend the coinage of silver. The effect of that step was, in the first instance, to very much reduce the price of silver. It also
    1294
    very much affected the exports and imports. It reduced exports and stimulated imports. It is believed that the repeal of the Sherman Act would have produced a catastrophe of the greatest magnitude if the Mints had remained open. Others may say that if the Mints had not been closed there would not have been that fall in the price of silver. That is, of course, a question of the might-have-beens, and what we have to deal with are the facts of the case. I may remind the Committee of the effect of the closing of the Mints upon the sale of bills for the 30 weeks from January 31,1894. If those bills had been sold at the silver price they would have produced £1,820,000 sterling less than they have produced, and the deficit would be so much more. We were told in the Debates at the commencement of the Session that the effect of this step would be to dislocate trade. Well, what has been the effect of this step on the trade of India? During the first quarter, from July to September, the export of merchandise went down Rx.646,000 below the average of the previous five years. The imports of merchandise enormously increased; the import of silver increased, the gold import decreased, and the result was that for that quarter the balance of net exports was Rx.3,046,000 less than the average of five years. From October to December—and the Committee must remember that the sale of Council bills had been virtually suspended in August, and there were still hardly any sales— there was a decrease in the balance of trade of Rx.3,537,000. At the end of January the Secretary of State resumed the sale of bills, and the moment that was done the tide turned, and in the quarter from January to March the decrease was only Rx.1,755,000. But when we come to the quarter just closed, from April to June, the first quarter during which the experiment has been fairly tried, and during which there has been no suspension in the sale of Council bills, the normal state of things was resumed. The exports of merchandise during that quarter amounted to Rx.30,268,000, as against an average of Rx.28,848,000; and the surplus exports, including treasure, were Rx.5,020,000 above the average. He would be a very bold man who would dogmatise on the difficult question of the currency of India

    1295
    and the question of the closing of the Mints, but these are the facts which I sub me to the Committee. I think it is too soon yet to form any judgment on the subject, and I think the experiment has not ret been fully tried. I wish to state publicly, however, that we have no intention of re-opening the Mints for the coinage of silver. We mean the experiment to be carried out to the end, and, so far as it has proceeded, we see no reason to be alarmed. The great work of Irrigation is proceeding satisfactorily. The total capital sum expended up to the close of the year 1891–92 was Rx.28,321,000; in 1892–93, Rx.602,000; in 1893–94, Rx.770,000; and we estimate to expend in 1894–95 Rx.616,000, which will make the total expenditure up to that date Rx.30,309,000. The percentage of net revenue last year on the capital outlay was exactly 5 per cent. The receipts of the Post Office for last year were Ex.1,488,000; the expenditure Ex.1,518,000. The extension of Post Office business is proceeding very rapidly. The number of letters and post cards passing through the Post Office in India last year was 311,000,000; of newspapers, 26,600,000; of parcels, 2,170,000; and of book and pattern packets, 12,149,000. The general correspondence Returns, of which these are a summary, show an increase of over 12,500,000 of articles carried by post last year as compared with the preceding year. Of this increase nearly 4,500,000 were due to letters, and 7,000,000 to post cards. The telegraph returns are equally satisfactory. The total capital outlay to the end of last year was Ex.5,434,000, and the percentage of net revenue on the capital outlay was 4–46 per cent. The Indian railways are the one subject on which I will now trouble the Committee, as I feel the greatest interest in them. We have now 18,000 miles of railway open. I know some of my friends are very much dissatisfied with the progress of the railways. So am I. I think nothing is wanted more in India, so far as constructive works are concerned, than a very large increase of railway communication. Such an increase of railway communication will be a great boon to all classes. The capital outlay up to the end of the year on the Indian railways is Ex.233,000,000. The number of passengers carried last year was 135,000,000, the number of tons of
    1296
    goods cerried 28,000,000, the gross receipts Rx.23,800,000,; the working expenses Rx.11,200,000, the net receipts Rx.12,659,032, and the percentage of net receipts on capital cost 5'44. That includes a large amount of unproductive capital for military and other purposes. While, however, the railways gave in India a return of about 5½ per cent, on their capital cost, the expense of paying in England the interest in gold is so heavy that the result of the Railway Revenue Account is to impose a considerable addition to the Imperial expenditure. In 1892 this additional net charge was only Rx.316,000; in 1893 it rose to Rx.1,847,000; in 1894 it fell to Rx.1,597,000, and the estimate for the present year is a net charge of Rx.2,130,000. The trade results for the year are satisfactory. The total foreign trade of India in 1892 was Rx.196,000,000; in 1893 Rx.197,000,000–1 mean exports and imports; and in 1894, Rx.206,000,000. Upon the whole, I think the Budget that I have had to give to the Committee is a Budget which, although it has some very depressing features, has some very encouraging features. Yesterday I was asked not to take a pessimistic view. I hope I do not, and I likewise hope I do not take an unfairly optimistic view. The great difficulty is the depreciation of silver. Two-thirds of the trade of India is with gold-using countries; and I think that sooner or later—perhaps the sooner the better— India must come to have a gold standard. As a matter of fact, the trade of India with England and all gold-using countries is on a gold basis. I think, upon the whole, apart from the question of exchange, the general position of Indian finance, both in commerce, in public works, and in all its special interests, is encouraging. My speech has been necessarily confined to the material progress of the country, though I could say a good deal upon its moral progress, which has been very great. On the whole, I submit these Estimates to the Committee with confidence, and I thank the Committee for the kindness and endurance with which they have listened to this most unduly extended speech, and I conclude by submitting the usual Resolution.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it appears, by the Accounts laid before this House, that the Total Revenue of India for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1893,

    1297
    was Rx.90,172.438; that the Total Expenditure in India and in England charged against the Revenue was Rx.91,005,850: that there was an excess of Expenditure over Revenue of Rx.833,412; and that the Capital Outlay on Railways and Irrigation Works was Rx.3,986,290." —(Mr. Secretary Fowler.)
    SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, he was sure the Committee would feel that no endurance had been displayed by those who had sat through the statement of his right hon. Friend. They all had expected that his right hon. Friend would apply to Indian finance that clearness of head which he had shown in dealing with English finance, and especially with local finance, and certainly those who had sat through his speech had been rewarded by the absolute clearness with which it had been marked. The question would be very widely asked in India, if not in this country, what was the exact meaning of the promise the Secretary of State gave yesterday to inquire into the expenditure of India? The right hon. Gentleman had objected, and very naturally, to a general fishing inquiry into the whole administration of India, and had said the responsibility for the policy pursued in India must rest upon the Government. So strongly did he (Sir C. Dilke) feel that to be the case that he would have more confidence if his right hon. Friend told the Committee that he was going to institute such an inquiry in his own person, with a view to making up his own mind as to the expenditure of India. He would have more faith in the result of that inquiry than in that of any inquiry by a Committee of the House. He knew that Committees of the House of Commons were apt to produce a large amount of excellent evidence that nobody ever read and recommendations that wore not acted upon. It would be asked in India what this Committee was to do, and the question was one which deserved an answer. Some of his friends and some people in India had suggested that important economies might be effected, and that an absolute improvement in the government of India might lie brought about by getting rid of the special Governments of Madras and Bombay and replacing them by Lieutenant Governors, who were sufficient for Bengal, the North-West Provinces, and the Punjaub. Were the Committee to have power to inquire into expenditure upon such heads as these, which could not be inquired
    1298
    into without laying bare the whole foundations of policy pursued in India? There were other very much smaller questions, which were nevertheless very large questions of policy, that might come before the Committee. There was no necessity to pay for a church establishment for civil purposes in India, and he would like to know whether questions of that description were to lie within the scope of the inquiry? If so, that raised the question of policy, and the same question would arise in the discussion of the other matters to which he had referred. His right hon. Friend the Indian Secretary alluded to the admirable results obtained in Mysore under native Government, a Government which might be called Parliamentary Government, the only example which existed in India. Would it be in the power of the Committee to take evidence upon such questions as the extension to different parts of India of similar systems of Government under local administration? But to take another instance which the Secretary for India quoted, that of the military expenditure. How far was this Committee to have power to impure into that branch of the expenditure of India? A document had been submitted to the House by his hon. Friends behind him—a document with which, on this point of military expenditure, he could not agree. But would the Committee have power to inquire whether the military expenditure was necesary or not? There were people who thought the expenditure unnecessary, and their opinions were largely shared by great numbers of people in India and in this country, and who really thought in any inquiry of this kind the whole question of the military expenditure should be considered. He himself was rather one of those who believed that it was impossible to economise under the present system, but that it might be possible to do so by changing the military system, and making it at the same time more efficient. But if the inquiry was to go into matters of this kind it would lie one of enormous magnitude, going into the whole foundations of English policy in India, and be of such a nature that, he would prefer to see it conducted by the right hon. Gentleman himself.
    MR. CHAPLIN: Sir, I must express my hearty concurrence with the opinion expressed by several hon. Gentlemen

    1299
    that the Committee has listened with the greatest interest to the able and singularly lucid statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India. I venture also to think that the Committee have gathered from that statement a feeling of something more than interest; they have had great satisfaction, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, that the financial position of India at the present moment is not so difficult as it was apprehended some time ago it might likely be in. The gist of the right hon. Gentleman's statement was that there was a deficit of Rx.800,000 in 1893, a deficit of Rx.1,700,000 in 1894, and in 1895 a deficit of no less than Rx.3,000,000, which by various expedients the right hon. Gentleman has succeeded in reducing to something like Rx.300,000. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be of opinion that, apart from the question of exchange, the financial position of India was not altogether unsatisfactory. But surely, Sir, it is the question of exchange which lies at the very root of financial difficulties in India at the present time. That opinion has been expressed from year to year in the clearest and most emphatic terms by persons thoroughly competent to express an opinion on the subject, and yet you do nothing to cure what lies at the root of the whole difficulty—namely, the fall in the price of silver. I, for one, am not able to share in the expectations of the right hon. Gentleman as to the financial position of India in the future. The right hon. Gentleman gave the Committee interesting information with regard to the recent sale of Council bills, and he reminded us that no great period has elapsed since he found himself confronted with this difficulty: that lie was unable to sell these Council bills at all. Happily, that is not the case at present. The improvement which we are glad to recognise in that respect appears to me to he mainly due to two or three circumstances, upon some of which the right hon. Gentleman did not dwell at all, and to others to which be only referred in the most partial manner. In the last few months during which the Council bills have been selling was embraced the busy season of the year. The Government have had the advantage of what is called the export season, which, I suppose, is hardly yet completed. It is during this season that exports are
    1300
    expected to increase, and, as a matter of fact, they always do increase. In addition to this, there is another circumstance which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, but upon which he only dwelt for a moment, and that is that during the last few months there have been exports of gold from India to England which have been unusually and abnormally largo. In addition to this, I know it is held by many people engaged in business, and who are competent to discuss opinions on this subject, that the war which has unfortunately broken out between China and Japan has probably had some effect tending in the same direction. Be that as it may, there happily remains the fact that the Government have been able to sell bills at price, and to that extent they are to be congratulated in having escaped, at all events for a time, from what threatened at one time to be a very grave disaster as one of the first results of their policy in closing the Mints. These great exports of gold, in my judgment, area very important factor in the question at the present time, and a factor which was not foreseen by anyone, and which certainly was neither foreseen nor contemplated by the Government at the time they adopted the policy which they have pursued. This is a very important and remarkable fact, and deserves the careful consideration of the Committee. For what I find is this: that while in 1893 there were not imports of gold into India to the extent of 1,88,000 tens of rupees, for the first six months of the present year there have been net exports of gold from India to no less an extent than 3,001,000 tens of rupees, and that great and abnormal export of gold from India is increasing.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: The net export of gold from India for the first quarter of the present year, from January to March, was Rx.515.000. In the next quarter, ending 1st July, it was Rx.1,919,000, so that I believe the right hon. Gentleman is half-a-million in excess.
    MR. CHAPLIN: According to my figures, and I venture to think they are reliable, the export of gold from India to 1st July, 1894, was 3,001,000 tens of rupees, and in the mouth of July alone it was 567,000 tens of rupees. However, this is a matter which can easily be cleared up from sources with regard to which there can be no mistake. But whether the right hon. Gentleman is

    1301
    right or I am right it diminishes by very I little the important fact to which I am calling attention. This great export of gold appears to be a matter of extreme importance from whatever point of view it may be regarded. And for this reason: The Committee must remember that the admitted object of the policy of Her Majesty's Government in closing the; Mints in India was to establish a gold standard in that country. But in order to make that standard effective it is obvious to everyone that there must be a vast stock of gold remaining in the country. The question, therefore, arises at once, Are these exports likely to continue in the future or are they not? Because, if they are going to continue, it is quite obvious that the establishment of a gold standard in that country becomes a matter of most extreme difficulty, if not absolutely hopeless and impossible. If, on the other hand, these great exports of gold are going lo cease, what is going to happen? We say that the total exports from India pro tanto are going to diminish; the market for the sale of bills will be proportionately limited and reduced, and you will again be placed in the same position which you occupied not many months ago—namely, you will again be in danger of a collapse of your policy of closing the Mints. It is a very curious fact in connection with this question that it, looks as if the first stop of the Government in the financial policy they adopted in India—namely, the closing of the Mints—was saved from disaster by circumstances which were particularly unforeseen by them at the time they adopted that policy; and what is still more curious than that perhaps is this: that this very circumstance which saved them from disaster at the time, if it continues will render hopeless and impossible the main object of the policy which they had in view—namely, the establishment of a gold standard in that country. The whole position, to my mind, is one of the greatest interest, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think I am not justified in asking two or three questions upon this point. The first question I would ask is this: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information whatever which he could give the House as to the source from which these; abnormal exports of gold are being derived at the present time? Does he expect, or is he able to form any expecta-
    1302
    tion as to whether they are likely to continue or to cease in the future? That is the important point, and it leads me to put this further inquiry: If these exports of gold should continue, is it still the intention of the Government to adhere to their policy of establishing a gold standard in India? If that is so, where do they propose to get the gold which would be absolutely necessary to effect it? If, on the other hand, these exports should cease, are we to understand that the policy enumerated tonight, that the Government will not interfere in any way with the closing of the Mints, is still to bold good? If that is so, and if in that case the market for the sale of your bills is seriously affected, bow does the Government propose to restore their These, financial equilibrium in India? I think, are legitimate inquiries which we are entitled to make on this occasion, and to which I believe the Committee will await with interest the response of the Government. While I am upon the question of exports from India, there is another inquiry which I desire to make of the Government. This question of exports was discussed, in more or less detail, last year. The right hon. Gentleman may recollect that my right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's (Mr. Goschen), who, unhappily, is not present to-day, took part in those Debates, and he put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question the pertinence of which will be obvious to everybody to-day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the speech which he had made just before hail pointed out that in the difficult position in which the Government found themselves placed—I have his very words here—the Government were looking for an alteration in the exports from India and a consequent demand for Council bills; and he said also, that if the exports became much larger in the next few months that would lead to the sale of bills. Thereupon my right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer this question—
    "Can you reasonably expect that in the next few months exportation will so increase that it will not merely prevent such a thing as has now happened happening next year, but will enable you to clear of the arrears?"
    To that the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied—

    1303
    "I am able to give an answer to that question which I think will be satisfactory."
    and then he proceeded to show the grounds upon which he expected that these results would follow. Now, what the Committee would like to know is this: Do the Government still adhere to that opinion which was expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year? And I ask the question for this reason— you must remember that when you came to Parliament last year with a Bill by which you asked the House of Commons to give further borrowing powers to the Government of India to the extent of £10,000,000, yon then gave us an assurance that the loan was to be a temporary loan, and was to be in no sense whatever regarded as a transaction of a permanent character. Is that still the view of the Government? Is that £10,000,000 to be a temporary loan, or is it now to be of the nature of a permanent loan? If it is to be of the nature of a permanent loan, we may fairly ask the Government to explain to us how it is that they came to mislead Parliament so entirely on the subject last year. Now, with the permission of the House, I propose to turn for a few moments to another subject. The right hon. Gentleman pointed in the course of his speech to the fact that the deficit in the present year was great, and he gave us reasons for holding the opinion which most of us share, that when the Government found themselves placed in this position of difficulty and confronted by a great deficit, it was their duty to make all legitimate reductions that were in their power. But I venture to say that on this point a great deal depends on what may be considered legitimate or illegitimate. And how have the reductions been effected in the present ease? I gather from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that they have been effected by the use of the funds intended for what is called famine insurance, by the abandonment of public works, by reduction sin military expenditure, and by other expedients which appear to me likely to be injurious to the progress of India. Only yesterday the right hon. Gentleman boasted to the House of the immense development which had been made in the construction of railways in India in the last 30 years. He will be the first to admit that it is of enormous importance to the future welfare of the coun-
    1304
    I try that that development should be continued. Well, I should like to ask, in view of the reductions that are now being made—in view of the use to which the funds for famine insurance and other funds are applied—what is the amount of railways he proposes to construct in India during the present year, or are no railways at all to be constructed?
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: No.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I understand that some railway works are to be constructed. But I assume that they will be of the most limited description. Therefore, we should like to know how the mileage of the railways that are to be constructed during the present year compares with the mileage of railways made in the past year or with the ordinary average of mileage? Again, the right hon. Gentleman yesterday referred to the great advantages of improved sanitation. He pointed to how much had been done in this respect in India, and he did so with great pride. But when I heard him do so my mind at once reverted to a paragraph in one of the Blue Books which had been presented within the last two or three days. The paragraph occurs in a speech delivered by Sir Griffith Evans, speaking in Council on March 24th, 1894, in respect to certain reductions. Sir Griffith said—
    "The barracks required in Upper Burmah will not be built; the sanitary measures required for the Army in India will not be carried out. and, worst of all, the proposed improved arrangements for water supply for the troops all over India must stand over. This means preventible sickness and preventible death among our troops, and the dreadful scourge of enteric fever is to run its course unchecked."
    Well, that is rather a serious consideration. That is a consideration to which I wish to direct the attention of this Committee, and which ought to create serious misgivings in our minds as to whether all these reductions by which this equilibrium, or apparent equilibrium, is to be obtained are wise and: legitimate. Again, I understand that there has been a very considerable reduction in the outlay on road sand public I buildings. But on these and other matters I do not wish to trespass too long on the time of the Committee. I wish next to say a few words on the encroachment on the Famine Fund. I will not argue the vexed question of the original purpose and object of the Famine Fund.

    1305
    I will only say this—that by many eminent authorities the views of the right hon. Gentleman are not shared, and that the right hon. Gentleman has raised a question of very considerable controversy. But what I wish especially to point out is that these proceedings have been undertaken in order to reduce the deficit of the present year. But that is a desperate expedient, and it is impossible that such an expedient can be resorted to in future years. I think that Ave must feel ourselves entitled to ask for further information from the Government as to what they contemplate doing when these resources cannot be looked to? The Finance Minister of India himself has expressed the strongest views on this point. I ask the permission of the Committee to read a single paragraph from his statement for 1894–5, which has also been laid on the Table of this House. It deals with those very questions which have been put before us to-night, and it seems to me shows that the Finance Minister takes a somewhat different view from the right hon. Gentleman as to the expediency of resorting to this means of meeting a financial difficulty. he says—
    "The means which we have adopted in our Budget Estimates of nearly balancing our revenue and expenditure are means which will hardly be available a second time. It is at some risk that we suspend even for one year the provision of a crore or a crore and a-half, which we shall certainly require if a famine season comes on us. We cannot call our financial position safe till we find ourselves again with that crore to the good. The 40 lakhs also which we obtain from the Provincial Governments exhaust for the time the source to relief from temporary difficulties. A year hence we shall certainly have to reconsider our position."
    Well, Sir, if that is so, we are entitled to make some inquiries of the Government as to what other expedients they are looking to in the future? We are entitled to make inquiries from the Government as to what will be done in the future. How are you going to meet the difficulties in which you will be placed in the future, and from which, as far as one can judge of the financial position, there can be no escape? The Member for Aberdeenshire (Mr. Buchanan) has placed a Notice on the Paper, from which it appears clear that he is in no difficulty on the subject. He says impose duties on cotton goods. He asks the House to pass a Resolution giving full power and authority to impose
    1306
    duties on cotton, and upon goods coming from Lancashire into India, at any time that the Government think it advisable to do so. Well, I am bound to make this admission, that having once made a departure from your principles, having once resorted to the expedient of the imposition of these kinds of ditties, I see neither sense nor reason nor logic in exempting particular articles from these duties. I see the less excuse in this case, for the duties, if imposed already, would have saved you from any deficit at all, and would, indeed, have secured you a surplus. Neither do I see, in regard to another article, why—unless your object is to deal another blow at silver and still further increase the disparity between the two metals—I say I do not see why, if you should tax silver in your new Import Duties, you are to refrain from imposing a duty likewise upon gold. But apart from that question, and speaking for the moment only as far as the Cotton Duties are concerned, although I have expressed the opinion which I have just uttered, it is none the less deplorable to my mind that we should be driven by the financial policy you have adopted to consider expedients so injurious to our industries at home. It emphasises very strongly the straits to which hon. Gentlemen belonging to the Party opposite are driven in order to support their policy of closing the Mints—that they, who have always been Free Traders and have been the most ardent disciples of Mr. Cobden and the worshippers of his fetish, should now be the first to urge on the Government Protection, and Protection moreover of a character by which they would impose duties on the chief manufactures of their own country. I think it will also be well to bear in mind that this proposal is made at a time when probably the industries in the North of England have seldom or never been less prosperous than now. I rather hope that the workers—the producers and artizans of the North of England—will take note of this: that they will remember, when the time comes, that it was from a Member of the Party who, above all, profess to be their friends—though I am bound to say that I think that to a great extent their action has been limited to professions—that it was from a Member of this Party that the first attempts were made to aim a blow at them, and the industries by which they live. The injury is all the greater,

    1307
    because the workers and industries of Lancashire, as of India, are suffering at the present time from one common cause. There is no doubt of the injury which the fall in silver has inflicted on India. And as to Lancashire ask any manufacturer, and he will tell you that there is no doubt as to the injury it has inflicted on him. But how have they been met? Whenever this question has been raised in the House or out of it—so far as I am aware—by any Representative of the industries in the North of England or by anyone else in this House, it has been met by nothing but sneers, jibes, and taunts on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But there remains the fact, however much he may sneer at it, that this question of the fall in silver is a question which lies at the very root of all our difficulties in India, and of the manufacturing depression in Lancashire. Lancashire, then, has a two-fold cause of complaint and apprehension. In the first place, the Government have contemptuously ignored the representations of Lancashire. In the second place, they would suffer greatly if the policy recommended by the Member for Aberdeenshire were attempted, for then the Government, in order to efface the consequences which have been brought upon them by their policy, would be striking a blow at the special industries of the premier manufacturing county in this country. I must say that the time for making this proposal on the part of the hon. Member has been well selected. I do not know whether he intends to press his Motion, or whether he will even have the opportunity of doing so, but he must know that this is a time when on so important a proposal there is no fair representation of the House of Commons. If I may presume to offer any advice whatever on this subject to the Committee or to any of my hon. Friends, I would say that I think that they would do well to reserve to themselves absolute freedom of action and opinion upon this most important point. What the Government may think it right to do on this question I do not know. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. H. Fowler) has carefully abstained from taking any line whatever upon it to-night. For my part, if I were called on to express my own opinion I should express my deep regret that Her Majesty's Government should have
    1308
    thought it fitting, and found it to be their duty, to adopt a financial policy in India which has seemed to any hon. Member to render necessary a step so injurious to some of the industries of their own country—a step, moreover, which, once taken, may have to be extended. For once the resource is adopted for the purpose of Revenue of imposing Import Duties in India you will naturally be driven to make them higher and higher, as your necessities increase, and in that way they may be fraught with consequences of the gravest character to English industries. However, that is a matter which it is for the Government to decide, and for which the full responsibility must rest on them, and them alone.
    SIR J. KITSONdesired to offer a few observations in reference to that part of the statement of the Secretary of State which concerned the construction and extension of railways in India. As he much regretted to observe, the rate of progress of endowed new railway lines in India which had been so slow in the past was not likely at present to be accelerated. Indeed, from the figures placed before the Committee it would appear that in the year 1894–5 the rate would be materially slackened. He ventured to ask the indulgence of the Committee, because he took up this question as manager of a large industrial undertaking giving employment to many workmen who would receive employment of a beneficial character if public works of this nature were pressed forward. He saw in India a reasonable opportunity of finding that employment of which they were sadly in want. In the course of a long experience extended, as regarded his own firm, to over half a century, he had seen the market in England for railway material existing, first in England alone, open out into France, Germany, and the Continent generally, but now, alas this was absolutely closed to this country. But, happily, new markets were developed in South America, in our Colonies, and in India, and in these latter (India and the Colonies) at the present time there was the only hope for the extension of the iron, steel, and engineering trades of this country. The House had frequently been occupied, and particularly quite recently, in consideration of proposals having for their object restriction of the hours of labour, and the one reasonable

    1309
    argument put forward for their adoption was the plea that thereby work would be more evenly divided among those who lived by their labour. He did not doubt the sincere desire of those who sought by drastic methods to diminish the ranks of the unemployed, but it was not too much to ask the I louse to consider whether there could not be found, through public works of a useful and remunerative character, fields of employment at home and abroad in possessions such as our great Empire of India. We are responsible for the provision of efficient transport service in India, and when it was borne in mind that in that Empire we controlled the destinies of nearly one-fifth of the computed population of the globe, it must be admitted that the simple statement of the mileage of railways in India in contrast to the vast population gave an impression that it was wholly inadequate for the service of such a teeming population. There was a strong conviction that the obstacles which impeded its more rapid development were raised by the Government in India and not by the Home administration. The present Secretary of State, as was very well known by association and descent, as well as by knowledge of the position, was bound to be on the side of those who would more rapidly extend the railway' system of India: but what did he propose in the statement he had just made as to the outlay on the construction of State railways in the coming financial year? For State railways in 1894–5, the estimated outlay was Rx.3,477,400. The expenditure for 1893–4 amounted to Rx.4,104,500, so that the proposed expenditure on State railways showed a reduction of Rx.630,100. True, there was an increase in the outlay by Guaranteed Companies to the amount of Rx.369,400, but there still remained au actual reduction of estimated expenditure in 1894–5 of Rx.260,700. The proposed outlay on construction was Rx.3,474,400, and that on the Guaranteed Companies' lines Rx.1,393,400, making a total of Ex.4,867,800, or, taking the rupee at fourteen pence, £2,839,550 sterling. The outlay upon new railway works and extensions in England, where the railway system was practically complete, was last year £25,000,000 sterling, and over the four previous years the average outlay for the extension and development of the existing system in Eng-
    1310
    land was £20,000,000 sterling, a total of £80,000,000 having been laid out in four years. Contrasted with the figures of the Indian proposals, at any rate, the latter could not be considered prodigal; and, indeed, he thought them parsimonious and far behind the necessities of the country. The total mileage of Indian railways open at the end of 1893 was 18,345 miles, the length sanctioned in that year 636 miles, and the total length sanctioned for 1891 was only 136 miles. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the not receipts amounted to 5–44. The Committee bad been told there had been a loss on the working of railways in India, but that loss was entirely owing to the rate of exchange, and so far was there from there being a loss on the working of the railways in India that he would not hesitate to provide a syndicate that would be prepared to give the Government of India not less than £200,000,000 or £250,000,000 sterling for the railways and take the loss on exchange. He invited the Committee to note the comparison of 18,455 miles of railway open in India with 174,784 miles in the United States. In India there was a length of 1 1/10 miles of railway for each 100 square miles of area; in the United States there were six miles for each 100 square miles. In the United States the percentage was six miles for each 1,000; and there was 10 times the mileage in the United States for area, and 45 times the provision for each 10,000 of population. In Russia, sparsely populated as it was, there was twice the provision in Russia in Europe, and in Russia in Asia 20 times the mileage to the population compared with India. He would remind the Committee that at this moment Russia was pressing forward its railway construction. Five thousand miles of railway were being constructed to connect Siberia with the Pacific coast. It was not necessary to demonstrate the paramount necessity of more railways for India, as it had been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India. In his speech yesterday he said—
    "I do not know a better test of the improvement of a country than railways. Nothing has been more important than the improvement effected by the railway administration in India, and the construction of the railways has been a great source of prosperity to the country, and a most important cause of its increased wealth."

    1311
    The right hon. Gentleman gave some statistics of the advance of wages in India, which in the last 10 or 15 years amounted to 16½ per cent. He might tell them that wherever railways were constructed the wages of artisans in contact with the railways invariably doubled, if not increasing to even a larger extent. Therefore, there was no dispute as to the necessity of railways. The question was, how was the money to be obtained? Competent authorities showed that 20,000 miles of railway were required. It was not necessary to indicate the districts or directions in which they should be made, because thousands of miles of railways had been surveyed and sanctioned by the Government of India which were not yet constructed. Lord Ripon, who was an authority upon this subject, sanctioned more miles of railway than any Governor General of late years, and he had often stated to him (Sir J. Kitson) in conversation bow strongly he was impressed with the need for more railways in India. He gathered that the block was somewhere in India. He remembered a friend of his of high position in the Indian railway world telling him of a certain Indian railway scheme which had been before the Indian authorities for some years. When the noble Lord the Member for Paddington came into Office the matter was explained to him, and after careful consideration ho sent a peremptory message to India which brought about a settlement in a few weeks. The scheme was at once prosecuted and was now in operation. That was the Indian Midland system. He had the greatest confidence in the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India; he thought, indeed, he might say that he had more confidence in him than in the noble Lord the Member for Paddington, and he believed that this matter was in very strong hands. The most economical method of providing capital was for the Government of India to borrow the money, because it could borrow at a low rate of interest; but it would appear from the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman that this was a method which was closed for the present. But there were other methods by which the hoards of treasure which they heard recounted yesterday as existing in India could be drawn upon if
    1312
    the native bankers and financial agents were approached in a businesslike manner. He knew of some tramway schemes, the capital for which had been provided by Indian bankers. If, then, the Government could not borrow largely, the bankers and financial agents would undertake the construction of railways provided that businesslike terms were offered to them. Of course, the Indian Government might propose such hard terms as to check and discourage enterprise. As a fact, he knew of many Indian projects which had been checked by attempts at driving hard bargains. The general interest of India ought not to be sacrificed to the timidity and the slothfulness of a Department. The times were very favourable for the undertaking and the prosecution of great public works and railway construction. Cheap money, cheap material, and unemployed labour were at the service of those who could offer fair terms, and the Secretary of State could render invaluable service both to England and to India by advancing these undertakings, which would provide profitable employment for thousands who were loudly calling for and urgently in need of it.
    SIR W. HOULDSWORTHsaid, the Committee would recognise that the statement which they had listened to that evening was one of exceptional interest, and exceedingly important, and he was sure they were very much indebted to the Secretary of State for India for the very clear and interesting manner in which he had put the facts before them. He thought that his statement differed in one respect from many of the previous statements made on the Indian Budget in that House, because it was apparent that it not only dealt with the finances of India, but with many important questions connected with the commerce and industries of both India and England. Under these circumstances, he greatly regretted that these important questions, in all their ramifications and details, had been relegated to the end of the Session, and he thought they had cause for complaint, for in the early weeks of the Session the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised a day on which Indian finances should be discussed. He did not say that that promise had been deliberately unfulfilled—it might have been that circumstances were too strong for the

    1313
    right hon. Gentleman — but in the position in which Indian finances and everything connected with Indian affairs wore placed at present, it would have been most desirable that they should have had a day set apart entirely for the discussion of Indian questions, apart altogether from the ordinary discussion upon the Budget, because it was evident from the statement they had heard, taken in connection with various interesting Blue Books that they had had placed in their hands, embraced many important matters, and not only important, but absolutely new, departures in policy on the part of the Indian and Home Governments. They had the closing of the Mints, the imposition of Import Duties, the discussions in the Legislative Council, and the threatened Cotton Duty. He only proposed to deal with one or two of these questions; and, first, he would say a few words upon the closing of tin; Mints. They were told that this step was still in an experimental stage. He did not know how long-that stage was to continue. Already it had existed for over 12 months, and, though the Government might say that they had not all the material to come to a final decision as to whether the experiment had been successful or not, there were several conclusions that might be arrived at even at present. He did not wish to appear hostile with regard to the closing of the Mints, but that policy had been universally condemned by all the authorities, not excluding even the Indian Government and the Herschell Committee, and he did not think the Government would have adopted it except as a policy of despair. There was evidence that there were other remedies for the position in which they were placed, and it was only failing these that they put this proposal to the Government. The same proposal was made in 1889, and the Government on that side of the House absolutely declined to allow the Indian Government to adopt it; and they did so because they believed it would be injurious and detrimental to the people of India. Therefore, the present Government were bound to show very strong reason for the closing of the Mints. One of the conclusions they could already draw from the experiment was that, if it succeeded
    1314
    in maintaining the rupee and in raising the value of the rupee as compared with the sovereign, the effect would be to injure very seriously indeed the export trade of India. They had this remarkable testimony from the Consul at Shanghai, who stated that in the quarter immediately following the closing of the Indian Mints the exports fell one-half from what they were in the corresponding quarter of the previous year. He did not think that that was denied by the Secretary for India. Then with regard to Manchester goods, the fall in silver which had resulted from the closing of the Indian Mints produced this effect —that the exports from Lancashire to China and the East were absolutely reduced in one year to one-half. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers were perfectly prepared for a considerable dislocation of trade, but he could not agree that that would be temporary. It seemed to him that as long as there was a gap between the gold value of the rupee and the gold value of silver there must be that dislocation of trade and prevention of exports from India to the far East. Coming now to the question of Import Duties, he submitted that that was a most serious departure from the true principles of Free Trade, and from the principles upon which he thought commercial legislation ought to be based. He knew it was thought that Free Trade principles would be maintained if they took care not to impose duties of a protective character. He did not think that that was the full extent of Free Trade principles. The apostles of Free Trade held the wider view that there should be the freest possible exchange between the nations of the world without any interference by duties of any kind whatever. It appeared to him that the Import Duties which had already been placed upon goods going into India were protective. There were no countervailing Excise Duties It might be said that these articles on which there were duties were not produced in India: but that was not the fact with many of the articles, for woollen and silk goods and many other of the articles on which there were duties were manufactured to a greater or less extent in India. He would go further, and say that, even if they were not manu-

    1315
    factured there now, bow did they know that putting the 5 per cent, duty on these articles would not at once encourage and stimulate their manufacture in India and bring them into competition with our own industries? Indeed, such an event was extremely likely, and the tax upon tea in England was not at all analogous, for tea could not be grown in this country. Therefore, with regard to the proposed Cotton Duty, the Secretary for India could not trust entirely to the argument about countervailing duties, because he had already thrown that over with regard to a number of articles on which there was now a duty. The extension of industries in India during the last 10 or 15 years had been enormous, and he believed that the movement in these industries which completed with our own had been stimulated by the fall in silver. In 1882 the present Duke of Devonshire stated that
    "there was no country in the world where it was less desirable to raise a duty on cotton goods than in India."
    He added that it was desirable, in the interests of India, that its foreign trade should be increased, and then declared that the policy and the action of the Government in India in taking off the duty on cotton was sound and wise, and that it had been adopted not in deference to any political pressure or exigency, but deliberately in the interests of the people of India. He would like to say a few words on the subject of the Cotton Duties, which were, it was true, only threatened. He thought he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India to say he feared the necessity would arise in which they might have to be imposed. He was quite prepared to admit that, when they had embarked on this policy of Import Duties in order to fill up a gap which had been caused by the loss on exchange, he confessed it might turn out to be difficult to defend the exemption of cotton goods. He believed there were arguments which could be used, and which no doubt would be used as to this matter before the right hon. Gentleman let the blow fall. He would, however, suggest that in the first place this was a very large industry. It was, he thought, nearly one-half of the whole of the imports into India, and it was also a very large
    1316
    industry in one important part of this country. There was a second suggestion he would like to make, and that was that it existed at present on a very large scale in India itself, which differentiated it no doubt from those which he had referred to, although he thought it would be found that they were increasing. There was another point, and that was that already, even without the operation of any Import Duties, the trade of Lancashire, both with India and the far East, had been seriously injured during the last 20' years. He should like to give the figures of the exports of cotton yarn to the far East from 1881 to 1892, and to compare them with the growth of exports from India to the same places —China, Hong Kong, and Japan. He found that, while the exports of cotton yarn from England to those places had fallen off from £47,000,000 in 1881 to £31,000,000 in 1892, the exports from India to China, Hong Kong, and Japan, had increased from £25,000,000 in 1881 to £178,000,000 in 1892, showing that there had been a complete displacement of the export trade from England to the far East in favour of India. He could give other proof, but ho did not think it was necessary, because he did not think it was denied that by the bonus which India had received by the fall in silver she had been enabled to take the place of Lancashire. Objection was taken to the word "bonus," and he confessed he did not like it himself; but undoubtedly it was a fact that the trade between India and the far East being on a silver basis, and not being touched, had increased to an enormous extent, while, owing to the difference in exchange between this country and the far East, and silver-using countries, our trade had been very much diminished. The right hon. Gentleman had indicated more than once that he would not think of imposing these Cotton Duties unless he could rob them of their protective character. He assumed that the right hon. Gentleman was trusting to the imposition of countervailing duties in India in order to avoid any suspicion of protection. It appeared to him that that was a very doubtful, if practical, policy. While it might result in protecting them in Lancashire from unfair competition from the

    1317
    Indian manufacturer, they were going at one blow to do an injury both to Lancashire trade and to the manufacturing industries in India. It was, as the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, the consumer who would pay this Import Duly, and, of course, if he had to pay the Import Duty he would, in all probability, consume less. That was the natural tendency, and the effect would be that, although they might keep the Indian manufacturer and the Lancashire manufacturer on a par, they would pro tanto destroy the trade of both, and thus commit a grievous injury. He would like to point out that these duties were abolished not because of their protective character, but because, as many authorities stated at the time, they believed they were unjust, and detrimental to trade, both in regard to the people of India and of this country. Those who could look upon this matter in cold blood, as it were, at the time when the Resolutions of that House dealing with these duties were passed, and apart from many questions which surrounded them to-day, had no hesitation in saying that these Cotton Duties, and, lie thought, all the Import Duties, were detrimental to the interests of the people of both countries, and they had, in fact, been condemned by all the great authorities both in India and in that House. He believed that no one was less desirous of putting on Import Duties of any kind than the present Secretary of State for India if he could possibly avoid it, and he perfectly trusted him when he said that he would not impose them unless the necessities were, in his opinion, so great as to force it to be done. The justification for the imposition of Import Duties was, as was bluntly stated by the Indian Finance Minister, "We want money; and money we must have, in some way or another." There was no question as to the cause of the deficit which India had to face. The deficit was entirely accounted for by the loss in exchange, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the proper way was not to deal with the evil directly, and not fill up a gap which occurred every year and increased every year with anything that the Government of India could lay its hands upon. He should be sorry to lead the Committee into a bi-metallic discussion,
    1318
    but he thought he was entitled to ask him to look into this question and see if there were not other methods by which this loss could be avoided, and at the same I time these very objectionable means of raising revenue by Import Duties could also be avoided. He asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would not deal directly with this evil, and not merely fill up a gap that occurred every year and increased every year, by temporary arrangements. The establishment of a par between silver and gold by International Agreement amongst the nations had always been the remedy which the Indian Government from their experience and authority had presented to the Home Government, and he doubted very much whether there was a single member of the Indian Government or any official either at home or in India who was not prepared to support that, and say it was the true and right remedy, and they had no doubt whatever that it would be successful. He denied that the necessity for the imposition of these Cotton Duties had arisen. There was the remedy which had been pointed out over and over again by the Indian Government, and which could be applied, and it was only the-determination of the Home Government which stood in the way of any International Agreement. Once they had got the value of gold and silver established on a permanent basis, they would be able I to relieve themselves of their difficulties, and England and India would both benefit. He hoped the Government would, before the next Budget Statement, consider this question even more carefully than they had done in the past.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, that with regard to the Committee to be appointed next Session, there was one subject which ho hoped would be included in the financial matters to be referred to it—namely, the apportionment of the expenditure between this country and India. It had been a source of constant complaint for many years past that India was unfairly treated where there was a joint financial responsibility with this country. India was saddled with half the expenses of the Opium Commission, and India was saddled with these expenses, without, as he understood, having any power to resist the expenditure. But there were other depart-

    1319
    ments in which India had made com- I plaints through her Ministers and those who had had charge of her Military Forces. The Member for Oxford stated that changes were made in our military system at home which entailed large expenditure in India, and while India was not consulted in regard to these changes, India, had to pay her share of these expenses. In a Blue Book dealing with the question of Home Charges there was a Despatch of 1889, which set out a Table showing that during a period extending from 1864 to 1882, no less a sum than £880,000 per annum was added to the military expenditure in India by charges imposed upon her by changes in the military system at home, and in regard to which she was not consulted, and her interests were not considered. That he held to be alone a suitable subject for inquiry by a Committee of that House, and he hoped it would be included in the Reference to the Committee which the right hon. Gentleman said he was going to appoint next Session. He desired to say a few words upon one point which had been discussed —namely, the question of the exception of the Cotton Duties from the Tariff Bill which was recently passed by the Indian Government. In the very able and attractive statement laid before them this evening by the Secretary of State for India, the right hon. Gentleman dealt with this purely as an economical question. When he dealt with this matter he rather felt that the account which the right hon. Gentleman gave to this House of the history of the question was not quite the same as that set before them in the Blue Books in their hands. But passing that by, what he did not think the right hon. Gentleman laid sufficient stress upon was that it was not merely an economic question, but a question of great financial and political importance as well. He dealt with it purely as a financial question. He (Mr. Buchanan) did not feel that he was at all capable of arguing an economic question of this sort with his right hon. Friend, but to his mind a considerable part of the case had been stated by the hon. Baronet opposite. A Tariff Bill had been imposed by the Government of India, which had been sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government. It in-
    1320
    cluded a very great variety of articles. That Tariff Bill was proposed by the Government of India, and was sent home to this country for approval. It met with the unanimous support of the Government of India. It met with the unanimous support of the Council of India, and it was Lord Kimberley and the Cabinet of this country who said to the Government of India, "You may pass your Tariff Bill, and you may include in it anything you like except cotton." It was the exemption of this one article from the Tariff Bill, which was sanctioned by the Government of India, that he thought upon financial and political grounds they had good reason to complain of.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, no Bill proposed any duty upon cotton. Telegraphic communications passed before the Bill was introduced.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, he was not aware of the actual procedure, but substantially the Government of India proposed, as he understood, an all-round Import Duty of 5 per cent., or that was what they wished, and the Government in this country said, in effect, "You may have an all-round duty of 5 per cent., so long as you do not include cotton in that all-round duty." As to the protective character of this duty, as the hon. Member for Manchester had pointed out, where an Import Duty was imposed on articles manufactured in that country, that duty was of necessity protective in its character, and so far as the duty fell upon imported articles such as were manufactured in India it was protective. Statements of Sir E. Baring and of Sir A. Lyall, one of the Members of the Council, had been quoted, and the necessities of India were said to be so great that the Government had to cast the net far and wide, including many items that were not in the Tariff of 1875. Anyhow, if the protective nature of it vitiated the proposal to put a duty upon cotton goods, so did it vitiate the proposal so far as it referred to any goods produced within the limits of India. Another argument adduced by the right hon. Gentleman was the Resolution of the House of 1879, and he was rather astonished at this when he remembered what took place yesterday. The Government which paid

    1321
    so little attention to a Resolution of 15 months ago were inclined to pay much more attention to a Resolution of a long past Parliament of 15 years ago. But he did not wish to make too much of that, and would not argue upon it. Surely the right hon. Gentleman would recognise the responsibility of the Government of to-day, and would not shelter himself under the Resolution of 1879? He did not believe the right hon. Gentleman would desire to do so; responsibility must rest on the Secretary of State and Her Majesty's Government. In a few words, he gave his version of the question as it appeared from the Blue Books from the financial and political point of view. Here was a case of a proposal unanimously made by the Government of India, sanctioned by the Secretary of State in Council, disallowed by Her Majesty's Government. That in itself was a very serious political fact. These apparent conflicts, for perhaps they were more apparent than real, between the Secretary of State and the Government in India, were often very much exaggerated, and he had no wish to assist in the exaggeration, but here was a difference of opinion, and strong action by the Secretary of State overruling the opinion of the Government on a distinctly Indian matter. What was the financial position in which the Government of India found itself? Roughly speaking, as he gathered from the Blue Book and the right hon. Gentleman's statement, there was a deficit of about Rx.3,500,000, and how was this to be met? In the first place, by a suspension of the Famine Grant, the deficit was reduced by Rx.1,000,000. So far as he understood the matter, he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the Famine Grant was to be provided out of the surplus revenue, and if there was no surplus there could be no such special grant. To meet the Rx.2,50O,OO0 remaining the Government of India said there must be new taxation and that the only source of such taxation was an Import Duty. They wanted to impose a 5 per cent, duty all round, and that would have met their requirements, about half the required amount being realised from cotton goods and the remainder from other items. In that way, with an equal
    1322
    Import Duty all round, the deficit would have been met. But according to the Blue Book the deficit had not been met—there was still a deficit of Rx.310,000, and as the right hon. Gentleman said, all depended upon taking the rupee at 14d., and it had fallen 1d. [Cries of "No!"] At all events, the proposals in the Budget had in view a deficit, not a surplus; while with the Import Duty there would have been a surplus, or at any rate the financial exigencies of the present year would be I met. What was substituted for the proposed Cotton Duty? The right hon. Gentleman glided gently over this matter. Economies were to be rigidly enforced: there was a saving of Rx.370,000 odd in buildings and roads—I Rx.194,000 on the military side, and Rx.176,000 on the civil side. A Member of the Council said—
    "We have practically cut out every work from the civil side of the expenditure to which we were not absolutely committed."
    The result, as had been said by a distinguished Member of the Council, would be the arrest of all development. Then, as to military expenditure another Member, Sir Griffith Evans, was reported to have said in Council—
    "The barracks in Upper Burma are not to be built, the sanitary measures required for the Army in India will not be carried out, and, worst of all, the proposals for the improvement of the water supply for the troops must stand over. This means preventible sickness and death among the troops, and the dreadful scourge of enteric fever will run its course unchecked."
    This was the statement of a non-official Member of the Council, and in language almost as strong the military Member of the Council said the result meant practically the undertaking of no new works, the neglect of repairs to roads and buildings, and the almost complete stoppage of all sanitary improvements. A serious statement for the responsible military Member of the Council to make, and this gave the Committee some idea of the cost to be paid for the exemption of cotton goods from this new tariff. Besides enforcing economies in this way, the Government of India had been obliged, owing to the exemption imposed upon them, to call on Local Governments for contributions to the amount of Rx 410,000, though, as the right hon. Gentleman said, they would still have a

    1323
    balance to their credit. But Mr. Westland's language showed that he took a very serious view of what he was obliged to do; he was most unwilling, he said, to have recourse to this method, which would mean, for a time, the stoppage of all administrative improvements, and take the heart out of local administrators. The Government were unable to adopt and carry through the only satisfactory means for relieving them from their financial pressure, and to the course pursued there were political objections. It did not tend to the stability or strength of the Government I of India when there could be read in the Blue Books statements such as were made in the discussions in Council. One after another, distinguished Members of the Council declared opinions entirely opposed to the proposal for which they were obliged to vote, and Mr. Weston himself said that, so far as the merits of the question were concerned, he was disposed to agree with the opponents of the I Bill, and not with those who supported it. This was hardly a fair position, if it could be avoided, in which to put Members of the Government of India. There was strong evidence displayed in the Blue Book, as well as in newspaper accounts of the discussions, as to the feeling in India on the subject. Statements were made by both official and non-official Members of the Council of India of the most serious character; that never in their experience had their been such an unanimous feeling of dissatisfaction as to the course pursued by the Supreme Government as there had been on this subject. Of course one would naturally discount the strength of irresponsible statements made under such circumstances, but, making all allowances, there was disclosed considerable, and he was disposed to think justifiable, dissatisfaction at the conduct pursued by Her Majesty's; Government. So much as regarded the past. One point upon which his hon. Friend had dwelt was that upon which he would say a word. Of course, all would regret and deplore the necessity which compelled the Government of India to impose Import Duties at all. It was a necessity of the financial position, and it could only be hoped that improvement in the financial position would enable a remission to be made.
    1324
    But the more the regret the greater the difficulty of defending the exemption of cotton goods. The Secretary of State said the matter must remain over for another year; that the decision of the Government was final for the present year.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that was not quite what he said.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, no, that was his account of it. He did not attribute the words to his right hon. Friend, but ho assumed that in substance his right hon. Friend had said what, of course, had been said in another place on this subject: that if it should be found necessary to include cotton goods, then there must be provision made for countervailing Excise. He dwelt upon that, and he would not discuss the matter in opposition to his right hon. Friend; but ho would like to point out that, from statements made in regard to the rivalry between Lancashire and India in cotton manufactures, it would appear that only in a limited field did such rivalry exist. The statement had been made and not denied that it was only over 6 per cent, of cotton goods that there was competition between India and Lancashire.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: I do not admit it.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, it had been stated and not with authority denied.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: It is in dispute.
    MR. BUCHANANwould not pin himself to a figure, but at all events it was but a small proportion of the manufacture as to which the two commodities came into rivalry. The statement of Mr. Weston was that, while Lancashire occupied a wide area without competition, it was only in a very limited field that the Indian mills competed with Lancashire trade. Whatever the extent of the overlapping might be, if there was to be an imposition of a countervailing Excise it should only apply to those goods in which there was this direct competition. With great satisfaction the Committee must have heard the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester on the subject. No doubt there was a widely prevailing idea—and he was bound to say not without considerable justification—that it was due to pressure

    1325
    from Lancashire that the duty had not been allowed to be imposed. For that unfortunate impression Manchester merchants were to blame, for undoubtedly there had been some exceedingly strong statements made by those gentlemen. He had a selection from which he would not quote, but certainly representations in very strong language indeed were made to Lord Kimberley. But the hon. Baronet had discussed the matter in a rational spirit, and at the Manchester Chamber of Commerce on Monday it was discussed in a moderate and temperate manner. One gentleman said—
    "It is of the first importance to convince the people of India that whatever happens we desire to act towards them in the strictest justice, and not from the point of view of our own interest. We must regard this matter from a higher point of view than that of our local trade."
    This was sounding the proper note on the subject, but if an idea in the other direction obtained among the people of India he did not think the people of India, were to blame for it, because there had been justification. But allowing all that to pass, and looking to the discussion in the future—for he had little doubt that it must come up for discussion again—he hoped it would continue to be discussed in a fair spirit, and that in the endeavour to arrive at a settlement all would show not only a desire to do justice to our own people, but would act up to the ideal that in all these discussions the governing consideration of each and all should be the welfare of the whole people of India.
    MR. HOLLANDthanked the hon. Member for Manchester for disabusing the minds of Members of the Committee of the idea generally prevailing, and often given expression to, that it was in some sort of dread of the effect on the votes of Lancashire that induced Lord Kimberley to exempt cotton goods from Indian Import Duties. Those gentlemen who took that view, basing it on what took place at the reception of the deputation by Lord Kimberley, must first ignore the sequence of events and deny the almanac, because, as a matter of fact, the decision of Lord Kimberley to exempt those goods was taken long before the deputation so often referred to waited upon him. The hon. Member who had just spoken said the
    1326
    competition between Lancashire and Indian products extended over a very limited area, and was confined to a very few towns. Knowing something of the trade, he was prepared to admit that the competition was now limited to a narrow range, but how long would it remain so limited were this 5 per cent. Import Duty imposed? At once there would be encouragement to extend that area, and concerns now limited to the production of the more common goods would, under the influence of the 5 percent, protection, rapidly enlarge their range of operation, and before long there would be serious competition with Lancashire in a new and wider field. From the Blue Book he could quote Reports showing how without a protective duty this competition was increasing, as, for example, there was no doubt that, looking at the course of trade over a series of years, the competition of the Indian mills in Manchester goods was growing, the mills gradually beginning to make the medium class of goods which formed the bulk of the imports, and they were also beginning to bleach and dye their goods. This without any Import Duty, so that there was every probability that the competition would be extended over a much wider area it' this duty were to be imposed. Many Members seemed anxious to know why this exceptional treatment had been granted to cotton goods. There was a history attaching to this question. Such duties wore once in existence, and it was only after a long and stubborn fight that, 12 years ago, they were swept away. History had proved that the action Manchester took on that occasion was no selfish action, and that its interest was in no sense hostile to that of India, and the result showed that the line Lancashire took conduced to the benefit of India. He could appeal with confidence to Members of the House and ask, who was it gained most by the removal of the duties in 1882? and lie was sure the reply would be not England—though, of course, England had gained—but India was the chief trainer. There was an idea abroad in India that she had been wronged in some way in the matter by the exemption of cotton from duty, an unfortunate idea, which ought to be dispelled at any cost. He knew Lancashire intimately, and might

    1327
    almost say that if a plan could be devised which at once would have the advantage of yielding the required funds for the Indian Exchequer, and at the same time put the manufacturers of India on the same footing as the manufacturers of England, Lancashire would not have a word to say in opposition to a proposition of that kind. Another consideration entitled the cotton trade to some exceptional treatment, its enormous extent forming, as it did, 50 per cent. of the imports into India. This was an extensive field in which production would be fostered and engendered by this duty, and if the effect of the duty should be to stimulate manufacturers in India to erect new mills, the removal of the duty would not remove the injury to Lancashire, for the mills would remain and the protected competition of India with Lancashire trade would continue. The hon. Member for Manchester had dwelt on the difficulties that in his view existed to the imposition of countervailing Excise Duties. The opinion of the Bombay spinners had been quoted, and they to a man—there being one exception—were opposed to these Excise Duties. So it was found that the Lancashire spinners were opposed to these Excise Duties. He could quote an opinion that would have great weight with the hon. Baronet. Sir John Stringer in 1881–2 declared that no protective duty should exist unless a countervailing Excise Duty was imposed along with them. For his part, he commended the action of the Government, and believed that in taking the course they had the Government had said to India that all the evils of protection would result by these duties; that the interests of the Empire would be sacrificed, and at the same time some injustice would be done to Lancashire. It was their duty as statesmen to look all round the question and take account of all parts of the Empire. They admitted that the welfare and interests of India had claims for first attention, and it was important the idea should not get abroad that India was regarded, to use an Americanism, as a mere dumping ground for English goods. The welfare of India was the first consideration with those who ruled that Empire, but he was altogether unwilling to believe that our statesmen were so
    1328
    bankrupt of resources that they were unable to suggest a plan of raising the revenue for the assistance of the Indian Exchequer without at the same time inflicting an injury upon a large industry in this country. He believed in this matter the views of Lancashire were not impracticable views. They admitted readily that the Indian Government was placed in a position of great difficulty, and were anxious to do what they could to assist the Government. If more money must imperatively be raised, he knew there were many men in Lancashire who would be content to have Import Duties imposed provided there were these countervailing; Excise Duties levied at the same time. He knew the position of the cotton trade was in a somewhat hard case at the present time, but that was not the ground and basis of their appeal; and in asking for the consideration of the Government he felt sure they need not plead the necessity of their cause, but the justice of their case.
    SIR G. CHESNEYsaid, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India naturally opened out a very large field of subjects which those who knew anything of India took an interest in. Many of these subjects had been dealt with by hon. Gentlemen around him; therefore, in the extremely brief observations he should make, he would address himself simply to one of the many points contained in the right hon. Gentleman's Statement which had not yet been referred to— namely, the railway policy. The loss that appeared upon the railway accounts, he thought, was due mainly to the way in which the accounts were presented; he said this without meaning to reflect upon the admirable way in which the Indian accounts generally were prepared; but he meant that in bringing the railway accounts into the finance accounts in the way in which it was now done by the Indian Authorities they were attempting an impossible task of combining the railway system with the general accounts of the revenue and expenditure of the year, including the class of transactions involved in a great commercial concern. Bringing the gross railway charges into the accounts was very misleading. The right hon. Gentleman had said the accounts now presented showed about Rx.92,000,00

    1329
    on each side of the account, and from that the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to deduct various very large receipts in order to arrive at the net revenue and expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman might have added that of these disfiguring elements the railway transactions were the largest of all, and these to a large extent were misleading, because, as the Committee were aware, the Government were the largest owners of railways, the next largest owners being Guaranteed Companies. In dealing with the second class, the guaranteed railways, all that was brought into the account was the actual net receipts. On the other hand, in the case of the Government railways, the whole gross receipts were brought in, and, on the other side, was shown the traffic receipts and working expenses. Considering that hardly a year passed that the Government did not sell or buy a railway or that a railway did not change hands, it was evident that this way of showing the accounts was calculated to produce great confusion and make it extremely difficult to ascertain the real position of the Government, and he therefore would suggest that an effort should be made to separate their railway transactions from the ordinary Budget accounts, and to deal with the former as what they really are— commercial accounts. With respect to the general result, as the accounts stood now they showed a loss; but he believed this loss was more apparent than real, because the Government was not only paying interest upon the guaranteed loan, but they were taking the very prudent step of buying up these guaranteed lines altogether by means of annuities. A very large part of the expenditure, therefore, was expenditure of a temporary character, and in respect of which, in a few years, the Government would come into possession of a magnificent property. Therefore, although the Government now had a deficit, a considerable part of the expenditure would not occur again. That was one point he wished to call attention to. In the next place, the Government, had thrown into hotch-potch all the railways; but it was well-known that a considerable part of the railway system consisted of military lines on the frontier, which were made for military purposes solely, and which never could, and never would, bring in any appreciable revenue.
    1330
    He did not mean to say they were not economical works. On the contrary; if the Army was called into operation beyond the frontier, the completion of these railways would prevent the expenditure of millions of pounds which had to be incurred in the last war beyond the frontier. But it was surely a mistake to mix up all this purely military work with what were really the commercial undertakings—the other Indian railways. If they were kept separate it would reduce the cost of the railways by a, very large figure. It was important to tear in mind that in the further extension of the railway system was to be found the one source of relief from the present financial embarrassment. The earlier railways, indeed, were loaded with the cost—the extravagant cost—of construction, which had occurred in the first instance due to want of experience and to mismanagement. Railway construction formerly cost very much more than it does now. In the next place, those earlier railways were loaded with a high rate of guarantee that would never occur again. The Government guaranteed 5 per cent, on the line in gold, and, in order to pay that, the line must make a return of 10 per cent, in silver, which was a very heavy loading indeed. They had to remember that in future, if they guaranteed at all, it would not be necessary to give a higher rate than 3 per cent., and in the next place that it was extremely improbable that silver would take another and a further fall of 50 per cent., and, therefore, even if they gave guarantees in gold, they would not again be loading the account with a heavy loss, because he thought it was reasonable to suppose the loss by exchange had reached its lowest and worst stage. With regard to railway enterprise, he was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman express so strong an opinion upon the useful effect of railways, as he (Sir G. Chesney) believed that nothing would do so much good for India as railways. The right hon. Gentleman had only been a short time in the position he now held; but he was bound to say that so far the action of the India Office, and the steps that had been taken lately, had not been of that happy character to encourage the employment of English capital in Indian railways. There had been a reaction

    1331
    against the guarantee system, but from guarantees the Government had now gone into the other extreme of apparently offering no inducement to English capitalists to put their money into Indian railways. The railways in India would be subject to a degree of control which railways in this country were not; and, on the other hand, they were not to receive that definite assistance which he thought was absolutely necessary to secure the confidence of the English investor, and lead to that rapid extension of railways that was so desirable in the interests of India. Quite recently there was a project for a valuable railway in the North-West Province, a railway that would be valuable both to the interests of India and of this country, but the correspondence respecting it had taken longer than the time that would have been necessary to complete the line, and in the end the proposal was so weighted with conditions, qualifications, and complications of all sorts that it was absolutely impossible for any projector to put it before the investing public. Ho would defy anyone not an expert in railway matters to know what was the real proposal of the Government in regard to it, yet the line was most urgently required in the interests of the country.
    MR. EVERETTsaid, that though there was again presented to them a deficit in the Indian Revenue, there was one bright side to the Budget. They were told yesterday that India was overwhelmingly an agricultural country, that the great bulk of the people of India obtained their living by the occupation of tilling the land. It was a gratifying fact to note that whilst all over the rest of the world at the present time a bitter cry was going up of agricultural distress, that was not the case with regard to India, the agriculture of that country, from all the Reports they had received, being in a flourishing condition. It was a green oasis in the general waste. The explanation was exceedingly simple. India had been spared that terrible and continued fall in prices which had been the principal cause of agricultural distress in England, the Colonies, and the United States. The fortunate cultivators of the soil in India had enjoyed the inestimable
    1332
    blessing of a stable standard. Their obligations remained to-day substantially the same as they were 20 years ago. They could meet them with the same amount of produce. It was all very well to talk of the fall of the rupee and the depreciation of silver; but anyone who would carefully look into the actual facts must, he was sure, be convinced that silver had really not fallen in value at all in these last 20 years. The purchasing power of an ounce of silver was now as great as it was 20 years ago. He supposed there was no more sound and reliable statistician than Dr. Giffen, and in an admirable essay he wrote in 1888 he showed, that, so far from silver having fallen during recent years, it had a little appreciated. The farmer in India to-day received the same amount of silver money for his produce that he received before. Therefore, while in this country and the colonies farmers were groaning under distress, the happy cultivators of the soil in India were going on their way in fair prosperity. According to Mr. Westland's figures, dealing with a period of 16 years, in all those years the Revenue of India had increased, and yet they had this singular fact: that with a constantly and steadily increasing Revenue India was constantly in financial difficulties. The explanation of this was to be found in the one word "exchange." He need not dwell upon that matter now, because the right hon. Gentleman below him had expatiated upon it, and admitted it to the full in his speech; and the speeches of the Viceroy and of his Council in India as given in the Blue Book were full of it, too. Exchange, and exchange alone, they said, was the cause, the only cause, of their continual deficiency. The fact in regard to India was that it was a mortgaged farm, and mortgaged unhappily in gold. And as gold was steadily mounting in value, India, like all other similarly mortgaged persons or countries, found the real weight of its debt continually increasing. She had to buy gold with produce, and, as the value of the metal increased, had to give more and more produce in order to obtain the same quantity of it. The growing exports of India were not so much an indication of her prosperity as of the growing weight of her indebtedness. Until the Home Government opened

    1333
    its eyes to the great central fact that it was not silver which had fallen in value, but gold, which had risen, they would never successfully grapple with the Indian financial difficulty. That was the key to the position. The fact that gold had risen in value was clear and obvious, testified by evidence of every kind. If they took any group of commodities at their wholesale prices, and measured gold by that standard, they would find that 63 sovereigns would purchase as much as 100 sovereigns would 20 years ago; gold as measured by commodities had risen 50 per cent.; but silver, tested in the same way, showed no change of purchasing power, showing that the movement had been, not in the silver, but in the gold. They were deceived by old prejudices and superficial appearances, just as in former times the theologians were who held that the earth stood still, and that the phenomena of day and night was caused by the movement of the sun. An accurate observation of the facts showed conclusively that it was gold which was going up — not silver, which was going down—and this explained why India had to keep sending more and more of its commodities to meet its indebtedness. The steward of the rich man in the parable told his lord's debtor, who owed 100 measures of wheat, to take his bill and write fourscore. They had told India to take her bill and write 150. They had been more unjust than the unjust steward. The Home Government had refused to recognise the real cause of this exchange difficulty, and had wrapped itself up in its blind gold prejudices. It reminded him of the old Methodist hymn in which the unregenerate sinner is pictured—
    "Wrapped up in self-conceit and pride,
    'I shall have peace at last,' he cried."
    But the Government, like the sinner, have; not found peace, nor would they while they founded themselves on the false belief that gold continued stable and that it was the silver that changed. The Government, instead of finding peace, had been driven into trying to do something. And what had they done? They had tampered with the standard of India in the interest of creditors and against the interest of the toiling masses. By purely artificial means they had laid
    1334
    heavier burdens upon those who had to buy their money with their produce and their labour. They had based prices and obligations fixed in money in India not upon the natural product of the precious metal, but upon the arbitrary will of the Government, and they had taken in hand the responsible and odious task of limiting the supply of the money of the people. Mr. Westland, in his Budget Statement, said that the central fact of the financial history of the country in the last year was the closing of the Mints; and, without intending to speak in any disrespectful terms, he (Mr. Everett) should like, in plain language, to call attention to what had been done by the closing of the Mints. First, look at the folly of it; or, if that were too strong, the lack of wisdom of it! Here was a prosperous country with an increasing Revenue, but the Government wanted more Revenue. What did they do? They actually cut off the supply of money out of which their Revenue came. Was there ever such a policy? Folly was written in large letters across the very face of such a plan. The result was, that they created a scarcity; they made a famine of money whore before they had plenty, and for freedom, with all its blessings, they substituted restriction. Look at the cruelty of it, too, to the producers in that country, who had to pay their debts and taxes with their produce! By artificially raising the value of money the Government increased the difficulty to these poor people of getting it, and thus rendered their position harder and worse than it was before. If the right hon. Gentleman would read the fifth chapter of the Book of Exodus he would find a picture of what he and the Government wore doing. They had taken Pharaoh as their model. There had been in the past history of this am other countries profligate Kings who had sought to enrich themselves at the expense of their subjects by debasing the coin of the realm at their Mints and pocketing the profit of such debasement. And now, in the 19th century, in this enlightened country they had—he was going to say a profligate Government; but he would rather say a Government which had broken loose from all sound reason and honesty— who were trying to enrich themselves at

    1335
    the expense of their subjects, not by debasing the coin of the realm, but by artificially raising its value. And he believed, as between the two, in an agricultural nation, they harmed the country more by artificially limiting and raising the value of the coin than the Kings did by debasing it and putting the profit of such debasement in their pockets. The Kings robbed creditors, but lightened the taxes. You rob the toiling millions—the producers—by lowering the money value of their produce, and you raise the burden of the taxes. You are worse really than the profligate Kings. Look at the confusion, too, that has been created by the closing of the Mints. Twenty years ago there was only one "money" in India, and the world. Silver and gold were one. Foreign Governments, by tampering with the currency in 1873, created two "moneys" This had led to all manner of difficulties, and now by the extraordinary action which you have taken there are three "moneys" instead of two. This was not all; for in the Blue Books which had been issued respecting India, there was the possibility indicated of a fourth money—namely, the native rupees coined in the native States —which the Blue Book stated were more easy to imitate than the others, so that in the artificial difference they had created between silver and the rupee the Government had introduced a great temptation to forgo these native coins. And it was stated in the Blue Book that there were beginning to be detected signs of difference in value in circulation as between the native and the English rupees. Instead, therefore, of going back to one money, the Government had actually multiplied fourfold the evils and confusion of the money world. Worse than that, what had been done, so far as he could see, was perfectly useless. The Government would fail in the object they sought to attain, and, having mistaken the disease, their attempted remedy would only make things worse. It was like giving brandy to a patient in a raging fever. They had closed one of the great markets of the world against silver, and opened up a new source of demand for gold. What other effect could that have than to widen still further the great gulf between the two, and so to open still wider what
    1336
    the Council in India described as "the yawning gulf of their gold obligations"? It must be borne in mind to understand the position that the movement had been in gold and not in silver; and in creating this new demand for gold — the metal which was already moving up fast— they had pushed its value up higher still. This was shown by the further fall in silver as measured by gold. It had fallen 25 per cent, further since the Mints were closed, or, to speak more accurately, gold had risen by that much more, and prices of produce here had fallen in proportion. And he felt sure from what they had seen already, and from the natural consequences of raising the demand for an already appreciating metal, that the effect of trying to put India on a gold standard must be to aggravate still further every feature of the disease under which they already suffered. The course the Government were pursuing would make debt more onerous than ever, would lower prices, and would place the agriculturists in India in the same difficulties as those under which the agriculturists in England and other gold standard countries were labouring; it would complete, too, the ruin of the latter. There was once painted a series of pictures entitled "The Rake's Progress," which attained considerable fame in this country. The course taken by the Government since they had dealt with this question seemed to him very comparable to the different stages in the rake's downward progress. First of all, they were blind to the actual facts, and refused to believe that it was gold which had gone wrong, contending falsely that it was the silver. Then they tampered with the silver standard; that was the second stage. The third was running into debt; they had to come to Parliament to borrow more money. The fourth was misappropriation of other's money—they were driven to the misappropriation of the Famine and Provincial Funds. The fifth stage was that a stop was put to all further improvement in the country, the money intended for this purpose having been taken. The sixth and last stage, thus far, was that Free Trade had been abandoned, and the disciples of Cobden, the members of the great Liberal Party, had to give their consent to the imposition of duties in India. The last, the

    1337
    gallows, scene would come in due course. They were going contrary to everything that they had previously taught. They had talked against tampering with the currency, and they had tampered with it; against misappropriation, and they had been guilty of it; against putting on duties at the ports, and yet they had now done it. The closing of the Mints had been followed by the closing of the ports. They had tried artificially to raise the value of money in the country, and now they were going artificially to try and raise the value of the goods that went into the country, and they were driven by their necessities to tax the common necessaries of the people — even the light they burned at night and the agricultural implements that went into the country. Oh, the humiliation and the shame of it! When people read that—the English Government, and especially a Liberal Government, had been reduced to do this—it would produce that kind of shame in the beholders which the Babylonian people must have felt when they saw their great King, Nebuchadnezzar, reduced to going on all-fours and eating grass like an ox. This figure was used by a member of the Indian Council in his speech. Humiliation had been inflicted upon the Government of this country by the course they had pursued, and even now they were not at the bottom of the valley, for the Blue Book stated that there was no confidence felt that they wore out of the difficulty. Even during the last two days, whilst this discussion had been proceeding, there were signs that the rupee was going to fall still further, or, in other words, that gold was still increasing in value. He recognised the great ability, sterling honesty, and integrity of character of the right hon. Gentleman who now presided over the India Office, and he would make an appeal to him. At school sometimes, a boy said what was a lie, and being challenged two courses became open to him —either to confess, or to lie it out. It appeared to him, looking at the course the Government had taken in this matter, they had not, indeed, told a lie, but that they had planted themselves upon absolutely false ground. They might be said to have had a lie in their right hand, and every step they had had to take in consequence had only plunged
    1338
    them deeper into the morass. Would the right hon. Gentleman bring his great powers of mind to bear on the question? If he would look into the facts and figures, he would see that the movement had been in gold and not in silver, and that consequently what was wanted was to lessen the demand for gold, not to increase it. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman was familiar with that interesting book, The Pilgrim's Progress. On a certain occasion the pilgrims, through wandering into Bye Path Meadow, got into Giant Despair's dungeon and suffered a great deal there, until a light broke in upon the mind of one of them, who said he had in his bosom a key that would open any doors in that loathsome dungeon. It was the key of Promise, which ho took out, and which opened the locks that had kept them confined. Such a key was within the reach of his right hon. Friend. If the Government would realise how the facts really lay, would retrace their steps and enter into negotiations with other nations who, lie was quite sure, would meet them half way, and so restore the old free use of both the precious metals by International agreement, they would soon find themselves out of the Giant Despair's dungeon of ever-falling exchange, and in the green meadows on their way to some happier and better place. He was convinced the movement had been in gold, not in silver, and there would be no remedy for Indian finance or for depressed agriculture at home unless something was done to lessen the continual appreciation of gold and to bring back again the old, free, and equal use of the two precious metals.
    SIR A. SCOBLEsaid, he should like to add a few words to what he said yesterday about Import Duties. He listened with great attention to what was said by the Secretary of State on the subject, and he must say that it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman did not make out a good case in defence of the course which the Government had pursued. The Government claimed to be consistent in their policy, but they might be said to have thrown over Free Trade and adopted Protection in regard to every other article excepting cotton goods and the precious metals, and therefore he did not see how the defence which the

    1339
    right hon. Gentleman had put forward could be maintained. The right hon. Gentleman said that these duties would fall on the consumer. This was, no doubt, the case, and the right hon. Gentleman proposed to get over the difficulty by putting a countervailing Excise Duty on the same class of goods when produced in the country. It did not matter what the proportions might be, but the Committee must know that the finer class of goods worn by the people of India were imported from England, and the coarser kinds were made in India itself. Therefore, instead of establishing a tax which would only fall on the wealthier classes, what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do was to establish a law which would fall on the poorer classes. That being so, he did not see where the benefit to the consumer came in under the arrangement. The right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the area of taxation in India was comparatively small, and that its limit had practically been already reached. The right hon. Gentleman spoke with a certain degree of hopefulness of establishing in India something of the nature of the Death Duties, which had recently been instituted in this country.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: Oh, no.
    SIR A. SCOBLE: Well, at all events, he said that there was nothing corresponding to Death Duties at present in India, and he (Sir A. Scoble) from that, perhaps wrongly, inferred that it was in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, as a field of taxation which had not yet been entered upon. Ho regretted to say that it had been entered upon. A duty was levied on all grants of probate or letters of administration, which, however, were only required to be taken out by those subject to English laws. With regard to the vast mass of the population who were under Hindu or Mahomedan law, if they wanted the assistance of the Courts to recover debts due from persons deceased, they had to get a certificate for the collection of those debts upon which in like manner the Probate Duty was levied. As to the Salt Tax, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman when he said that he did not think that any statesman would endeavour to increase this tax. He, indeed, agreed with the right hon. Gentle-
    1340
    man in the hope that before long this tax would be considerably diminished. It was very desirable that, as this was a time of peace, it should be diminished. In point of fact, the Salt Tax was the one tax which could be relied upon in the event of any great war in which India was involved. It should be a resource in case of emergency, but, unfortunately, at the present time it was as high as it was possible to make it. But, without dwelling any further on this part of the proposals of the Government, he should like to express the extreme satisfaction with which he heard the right hon. Gentleman speak of the necessity and the advantage of railway extension in India. There was a great tract of the country which was not at present occupied by railways, and it might be difficult to obtain English capital for the construction of railways in those parts if they had not the guarantee of the Government. He should advise the Government to extend the system of guarantees, and he also believed that the Government might well and profitably employ the very large cash balances they now had in making some of these railways in districts which were entirely without such accommodation, and where it was necessary that railways should be made in order to complete the chain of communication throughout the country. One other observation he should like to make in respect to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke) in regard to the Committee which the right hon. Gentleman promised yesterday. It seemed to him that an inquiry into the expenditure of India really came to this: that it was an inquiry into the whole administration. Such an inquiry would be a great deal too wide if that would not terminate in any reasonable time. It must necessarily be spread over one or two Parliaments, and by the time that its labours were terminated the subject would be stale and the labours of the Committee almost thrown away. He believed, however, that a limited inquiry would be of service, especially a limited inquiry into the financial relations between India and England. An inquiry so limited would, he thought, tend to get rid of some injustices with which India

    1341
    was at present afflicted, and would clear up many misapprehensions which prevailed largely in the minds of the educated natives of India. Such an inquiry might not only be useful, but be completed in a reasonable time. There were other matters which he would like to speak about; but ho would not take up time, as older Members wished to speak. He must, however, express his sense of admiration of the clear exposition of the finances of India which the right hon. Gentleman had given, and still more of the determination which the right hon. Gentleman had shown to grapple with some of the more immediate difficulties which were threatening the Government of India at the present time.
    SIR W. WEDDERBURNsaid, that he desired to thank his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for having granted a Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry. It was not all that had been asked for, but it was a step in the right direction, and considering his high reputation as a financier it seemed appropriate that the first step should be a financial one. He trusted that the Committee would be made so strong, both in numbers and in the selection of members, and that the Reference would be so comprehensive, that real benefit would accrue to India. He feared, however, that the tone of the speech just delivered by the Secretary of State would cause profound disappointment in India. It appeared to him that his right hon. Friend had abandoned the judicial attitude which the Secretary of State should maintain, and had constituted himself the spokesman and apologist of the official views of which they complained. They all knew that there were two sides to these questions. There was the view taken by the people of India, and there was the official Anglo-Indian view. The case for the officials was put before the Secretary of State by the India Office, and by the London Press, and by official Representatives on the other side of the House. But what chance had the people of India of getting a hearing? Responsible public associations in India had forcibly stated their case, which was diametrically opposed to the official case. And he had made a detailed representation to the Secretary of State on the subject. He was glad to
    1342
    say that that representation had received no small support from Members of that House. But in his speech the right hon. Gentleman had not deigned even to notice that representation or the facts, figures, and arguments which it contained. Listening to the speech, no one would have guessed that the Secretary of State had before him any case at all for the people of India. The right hon. Gentleman's speeches were pure official optimism. He merely stated the official case, and blessed it altogether. His right hon. Friend had complained that he had called him the tool of the Indian Council. He did not think he had used that word. But he desired to explain, that he did not regard his right hon. Friend as a willing tool, but as an unconscious victim of his surroundings in the India Office, a sufferer from the bad political atmosphere in which his work was carried on. They often read how a stout working man, being lowered into an old disused well, was overcome by the fumes of carbonic acid gas. And the same sort of thing happened to every Liberal Secretary of State whom they sent to the India Office. His right hon. Friend was quite unconscious of this, but this unconsciousness was the most dangerous part of the whole business. He believed that scientific men had invented an instrument which would test the air and give warning in such cases. And he thought he could provide his right hon. Friend with a similar safeguard. The test was to be found in the cheers that he received in that House, and in the quarter from which they proceeded. During his two speeches the right hon. Gentleman had received continuous cheers from the Tory Benches, while silence reigned among his own supporters. And a Liberal Minister, instead of being gratified, should be warned that there must be something radically wrong when he thus received the enthusiastic approval of his political opponents. Proceeding to notice points in the Financial Statement the hon. Gentleman expressed his astonishment that the Secretary of State should declare that there was no Famine Insurance Fund, and that there had never been one. He did not know under what technical plea this statement could be justified. The fact was, that special new

    1343
    taxes were imposed for the express purpose of famine insurance. To quote the words of the Finance Minister, Sir John Strachey, the proceeds of these now taxes were to be expended for the purpose of providing what ho called an insurance against famine, and for no other purpose whatever. Was that not a Famine Insurance Fund? Sir John Strachey called it a sacred trust. And if the proceeds of the taxes were not paid into a separate account in the name of trustees it was simply to avoid inconvenience in book-keeping. Being-appealed to, the Viceroy, Lord Lytton, minuted to the following effect:—
    "The sole justification for the increased taxation which has just been imposed upon the people of India for the purpose of insuring this Empire against the worst calamities of future famine, so far as an insurance can now be practically provided, is the pledge we have given that a sum not less than £1,500,000 sterling, which exceeds the amount of the additional contributions obtained from the people for this purpose shall be annually applied to it."
    The people, grown shy by sad experience, still doubted, and were severely rebuked by Lord Lytton. He again declared that the sole purpose of the additional taxation was to preserve from famine, and he said that to insinuate the contrary was to insinuate a calumny. What now was being done? The special taxes were still being levied, producing annually about Rx.1,750,000, and the Government proposed to apply these proceeds to increase official salaries. The right hon. Gentleman might call these transactions by such technical name as he liked, but the people of India considered that a distinct pledge had been broken, and that a great injustice had been done. He desired now to notice one or two points in the Financial Statement. Mr. Westland, as Finance Minister, had declared that exchange, and exchange only, was the cause of the present deficit. And the Secretary of State appeared to endorse this view; also Mr. Westland maintained that the increased cost of exchange exceeded the increase of net revenue. He (Sir W. Wedderburn) ventured to differ entirely from both these conclusions. To ascertain the facts he had taken a period of 10 years, dating back to the happy time when Lord Ripon and Sir Evelyn Baring (now Lord Cromer) were in charge of
    1344
    the finances, when there was a balance to the good, and when taxes were remitted. Comparing that time with the present it appeared that the increased annual cost of exchange was now about Rx.6,000,000, whereas the increased net revenue was Rx.8,500,000, showing an excess of Rx.2,500,000. Or taking the aggregate of 10 years the total excess was Rx.18,500,000, so that the expansion of revenue was enough to pay for the cost of exchange twice over. The real cause of the financial difficulty was the excessive unreproductive expenditure upon the Military and Civil Services. In all other departments, including those most beneficial to the people, the reductions had been very large. As compared with 10 years ago, the saving amounted to Rx.4,644,683, which exceeded the cost in exchange for those departments by Rx.873,602. On the other hand, instead of reductions, the Military and Civil Services cost Rx.8,854,346 a year more than they did 10 years ago; and this, together with Rx.3,322,786, the exchange connected with those Services, came to the great total of Rx.12,177,132, which swallowed up the surplus inherited from Lord Ripon, Rx.722,622, the whole increase of net revenue, Rx.9,604,871, and the savings in other departments, Rx.873,602, and in addition produced a deficit of Rx.976,637. All these figures had, on behalf of the people of India, been carefully placed before the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State; but, as already observed, he had not considered it necessary even to refer to these contentions in the statement lie had just laid before the Committee. Another point to which he took strong exception in the right hon. Gentleman's speech was his statement that land revenue in India was not a tax upon the people, but only a share of the rent. This was, no doubt, the theory, but the practice was very different. He would beg to commend to his right hon. Friend the perusal of certain Minutes recorded in the Indian Council, which he would find at p. 134 of Appendix I. of the Famine Commission Report. These Minutes related to a proposal of Lord Hobart to stop all enhancements of the Land Revenue in the Madras Presidency. It there appears that the instruc-

    1345
    tion of Sir Charles Wood was that I the land revenue should not exceed one half of the free rent. But it was admitted that this was a "mere paper instruction." Sir Bartle Frere, than whom there was not a better practical authority on this point, stated that the State demand rarely if ever fulfilled the requirements of the India Office instruction, and that with the exception of a very few localities, infinitesimally small, a true Land Tax was practically unknown. As regards the Bombay Presidency, he said that the assessment came under three classes. First, a Land Tax fixed more or less arbitrarily; second, a full rent leaving nothing to the cultivator but the wages of his labour and the interest on his capital; and, third, a rent and something more trenching on the wages of labour or the profits of capital. To those three classes Sir Louis Mallet added yet another, where the land yielded no rent at all, and the assessment was taken wholly from that portion of the crop which represented the wages of I labour. When his right hon. Friend had leisure to read the Famine Commission Report, the Report of the Dekkhan Riots Commission, and the Debates in Council regarding the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act, he would doubtless modify very materially his views regarding the Indian cultivator's burdens and condition. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the cultivator's improvements were not taxed. How did he account for the enhancements in the Panwell Taluka which had been brought to his notice by a question in the House? An instance had been given where a cultivator's I assessment bad been raised from 4 rupees to 45 rupees. Was the difference the in crease in the value of the land apart from the cultivator's industry? He would give the right hon. Gentleman a clue which he might follow up. Let him inquire what "Pot-Kharab" means in the Bombay Presidency, and he will find that these enhancements are upon reclamations and improvements within the cultivator's holding which he was encouraged to make by the promise that they would not be taxed. The right hon. Gentleman was very indignant because the Member for Flintshire said that there was corruption among the Settlement officers, but if he will inquire he will find that one main
    1346
    excuse for these enhancements was the alleged frauds on the part of the officials who made the original settlements. The objection taken to the military expenditure was one of policy more than account. He, in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, did not grudge money for the true defence and safety of India. But what he objected to was the policy of aggression upon our weaker neighbours, a policy equally unjust and dangerous. India was surrounded by a frontier of sterile-mountainous regions, inhabited by wild tribes. This constituted a natural rampart, like a thorny hedge, and it was perfect folly either to penetrate into that hedge or to destroy it. This policy of aggression was foreseen and denounced in the Viceroy's Council by Mr. Ilbert and Sir Auckland Colvin when the first great addition of 30,000 men was made to our Army with reference to the attack on Burma. These gentlemen said this increased force would be used for purposes of aggression, and not of defence, and this prophecy had come true. For purposes of defence in India, an efficient Regular Force was no doubt required, but the true safety of the country depended upon this force being backed by a full treasury and a contented people. Another important question was the fair distribution of the military burden between India and Great Britain. The conquest of Upper Burma was undertaken purely for supposed Imperial interests, and it was a burning shame that the whole expense had been placed upon the Indian taxpayer, who was entirely opposed to the whole business. During the last eight years a charge of some £12,500,000 had fallen upon India on account of Upper Burma, and it appeared likely that this charge would continue at the rate of about £1,500,000 annually. With such treatment was it to be wondered at that India was in financial difficulty? Among the remedies now required, one of the most important was a fair distribution of military expenditure between India and this country. Then there seemed no good reason why the Military and Civil expenditure should not be brought to the figure it stood at in 1884–5, during the happy time of Lord Ripon. The compensation to the Services should be suspended until the finances could afford this

    1347
    indulgence. And as regarded the future, care and economy would be insured if only £5 of the salary of the Secretary of State for India were put upon the Imperial Estimates. What did Mr. Disraeli say on this point?
    "Have the people of England ever cared one jot about Indian reform? No, they have not; and for this very simple reason—that the people of England do not pay for India; because so long as Indian finance is separated from English finance, and so long as the people of England do not pay in consequence of misgovernment in India, so long, depend upon it, they will not care for Indian reform."
    This was a formidable indictment against our national honesty and unselfishness. He trusted his right hon. Friend would do his best to convince the people of India that their welfare was his first object.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: It is now close on midnight, and, this being the third day that the question of Indian Finance has been under discussion, I think it will not be unreasonable to ask the Committee to close the Debate and let this interesting conversation come to an end. I regret that I cannot review at length the various criticisms, many of them very interesting and valuable, which have been made upon my statement. I trespassed upon the time of the Committee at great length at an early period of the evening, and not even for the sake of answering the objections which have been raised do I think I am justified in asking the Committee to undergo the weariness of listening to me again; but I can assure hon. Gentlemen who have spoken that the suggestions they have thrown out will not be lost sight of. Two or three of the questions which have been put to me, however, I will at once reply to. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean put a very direct and pertinent question as to the nature of the inquiry which has been promised for next year. I thought I had made it perfectly clear that it would be most undesirable to have a Select Committee to inquire into the policy of the administration of India. The Government have no intention of the sort. My right hon. Friend put to me the question as to whether the Committee should deal with the position of the Council and the
    1348
    Secretary of State. I may make that clear—certainly not. That is a question for hon. Members to bring before this House—it is a question of policy. The Committee is to inquire into the various items of expenditure solely from a financial point of view, and to see how the money is spent. There are various points which would come before the Committee for inquiry from the financial point of view, as to whether expenditure is excessive, the expenses of administration, and that much vexed question, the apportionment of charges paid here and in India. But I warn the Committee, and I warn my hon. Friends who are so desirous that these questions should be raised, that the responsibility of the inquiry must be with those who desire it. There are those who think that India pays too little, and there are friends of India who think she pays too much, and the result may be disappointing to either side. I express no opinion, for I have not had time to make investigation, but the Committee may report that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is entitled to a larger contribution from India than India pays, and, if so, it will not be upon my head the blame will rest for reopening this difficult and complicated question. Various points have been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean as to the character and extent of the inquiry, but do not let him be under any delusion. We propose a Committee of a purely financial character, to deal with financial questions, and not to deal with questions of policy and general administration. My hon. Friend who has just sat down complains that I have not answered the Memorandum he sent to me. That Memorandum has been carefully considered in the India Office, and I have a complete reply to most of the various points raised in it; but when addressing to the Committee a three hours' speech on finance I thought it would be unnecessary to go into disputable questions in which I could not probably have convinced my hon. Friend, and he could not have convinced me. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Sir J. Kitson) spoke with reference to the railway system. He made an interesting speech at an unfortunate hour in a this

    1349
    House, and his speech was worthy the attention of a much larger audience. His views were re-echoed by subsequent speakers, and all I can say is that I absolutely sympathise with the desire of the hon. Member for an extension of the railway system in India. I recognise that we cannot extend the guarantee system, and what we have to do is to encourage private capital to invest in the construction of railways in India. There is a controversy now going on between the Government of India and those who are interested in Railway Companies as to terms, and all I am at liberty to state is that at the present time the whole question is under the immediate consideration of the Government of India to see what modifications may be introduced into the terms of which several Members have complained. Into the field of bi-metallism I will not at this hour attempt to enter, and I hope Members who have devoted time to that will not complain if I do not attempt a reply. I can only say that we shall proceed with the experiment we are trying—that of closing the Mints. An hon. Member near me thinks the experiment has been an absolute failure, and he has criticised it in strong language, but at all events we have acted upon the opinion of those most competent to give advice; we attach importance to the judgment of experts on the subject, and we see no reason to doubt the wisdom of the policy we have adopted. I hope the Committee will be satisfied with this Debate, which, extended over three days upon various Indian matters, has been full of interest. I hope the increased interest taken in Indian matters will he productive of good results, that the criticisms made will be considered by those upon whom responsibility devolves to determine whether proposals shall be carried out, and that in any event the discussion we have had may tend to the advantage of India.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, That it appears, by the Accounts laid before this House, that the Total Revenue of India for the year ending the 31st day of March 1893 was Rx.90,172,438; that the Total Expenditure in India and in England charged against the Revenue was Rx.91,005,850; that there was an excess of Expenditure over Revenue of Rx.833,412: and that the Capital
    1350
    Outlay on Railways and Irrigation Works was Rx.3,986,290.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [Lord]. (No. 354.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 and 2 agreed to.
    Clause 3.
    On Motion of The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir J. Rigby, Forfar), the following Amendment was agreed to: —Page 2, line 39, leave out Sub-section (1).
    Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. T.M. HEALYsaid, he wished respectfully to enter his objection, not intending to do more than make it formal, to the system the Statute Law Revision Committee had adopted of reviving enactments formerly repealed. It practically amounted to a surprise upon Parliament and to the legal profession. As he understood, by the sub-section it was proposed that, a certain Scotch Act repealed many years ago—in 1888—an Act or part of an Act which had laid dormant all this time, should now be revived. This might lie very proper; he was not complaining of the revival, but the revival should be by a new Act, and not by the machinery of a Statute Law Revision Bill. If he desired he might raise what he believed would be a fatal objection in calling attention to the fact that the title of the Rill indicated repeal, whereas this Bill revived an enactment already repealed. It should be the duty of the very eminent gentlemen who represented the legal profession or the Treasury Bench to insist that the Statute Law Revision Committee should do one of two things—either not revive an Act, or if there was any doubt as to its having been repealed by inadvertence they should revive it by substantive Act. He could not lay great blame on the Statute Law Revision Committee, considering their enormous labours, because they now and then made a mistake. Ho had himself come across four mistakes in repealing operative Acts

    1351
    causing great inconvenience to many persons. But when the Committee found they had made a mistake they should come frankly to Parliament and say so, and have the mistake rectified by a Bill. To do this by the Statute Law Revision Bill led to dangerous misunderstandings in the profession. He wanted the Attorney General to express an opinion in regard to the section he had amended.
    SIR J. RIGBY: Undoubtedly there are cases in which some slips have been made. It is, and it has been the practice, so I am told, for many years, where it has been made clear to the Committee that accidentally such a slip has taken place, to correct it in the Statute Law Revision Bill. Of course, such methods of correction are to be exercised with the utmost care, and in every such case it has been the practice since I have known anything of the proceedings of the Joint Committee to refer to every person who by any chance could throw any light on the subject, and the Committee only proceed in the way of reviving a section when it is quite clear that what has been done has been done inadvertently, and by a slip. In this particular case there has been no departure from the usual practice. There had been an undoubted slip in reference to a Scotch Act. This was carefully considered by the Joint Committee when it was thought that a slip had occurred, and the course pursued was that which had been taken in previous years, opportunity being taken to remedy the inadvertence. Wherever there is a doubt as to that being the proper course to pursue, the invariable practice of the Joint Committee has been to give way and not attempt to revive an enactment when there is any doubt as to the absolute safety of the course to be taken.
    DR. CLARKsaid, he had listened with great care to the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but it was no clearer to him now than it was before the explanation what the Committee was doing. As he understood, a Scotch Act, or a portion of a Scotch Act, had been repealed, and now the repealing statute was to be repealed. But surely they had been in the habit of knowing what they were enacting, and he desired to know what was the Act
    1352
    repealed; what was its object, and what had been the result?
    SIR J. RIGBY: In this particular instance it is only making the Statute Book in accordance with what has been done. By some slip in a Statute of 1888 some words—one or two words—of the Statute were left out enabling different authorities to collect taxes. They have-gone on as if there had been no alteration at all; it was not noticed that an alteration had taken place, and there was no alteration in practice.
    DR. CLARK: The Local Authorities in Scotland have been collecting taxes illegally?
    SIR J. RIGBY: No, not at all. It was only a doubt, a certain doubt. The point had never been raised by anyone. Of course, if there had been a repeal of this power it would never have been used. It is only a certain doubt, to be cleared away by this alteration.
    DR. CLARKsaid, he did not yet know the object. Who were the Local Authorities—were they Poor Law Authorities, were they Municipal Authorities who had been acting in this fashion? He thought before they re-enacted a law which had been repealed they ought to know specifically what they were doing. Perhaps, as this was a Scotch matter, the Lord Advocate would be able to tell Members of the Committee what they were doing? All he had gathered was that in 1888 there was a clause repealed, that municipal or other authorities did not know that, and had gone on collecting taxes when they actually had not authority to do so, or there was a doubt about it, and now the Local Authorities were to have the power given them. Really the Committee should know more about this.
    MR. CONYBEAREsaid, there was one point upon which perhaps the Attorney General could enlighten the Committee. It appeared that the Local Authorities had had no legal power to make the collections during the years since 1888. Was it competent for anyone who had made payments during the time to bring an action against a Local Authority for illegal collection of taxes?
    DR. CLARKsaid, if no explanation was forthcoming he should take a Division. There should be some refer-

    1353
    ence to the subject by the Attorney General or the Lord Advocate.
    MR. ALBAN GIBBSsuggested they might be allowed to know the name of the Act in question.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: —Ayes 58; Noes none.—(Division List, No. 234.)
    Remaining Clauses and Schedule agreed to.
    Preamble.
    SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, he had ventured to suggest on the last occasion when the Bill was before the House that a little more time should be allowed to consider it; and as the result of such examination as he had been able to make he had one or two suggestions to offer, which, however, he would defer to the Report. As the object of this legislation was simplicity and the prevention of repetition, was it not foolish to deal with two clauses of the old Merchant Shipping Acts, seeing that the House had passed an Act repealing the whole and consolidating the provisions.
    Preamble agreed to.
    Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

    BURIALS BILL.ߞ(No. 33.)
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to,—
    Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order (No. 1) (Canals of the Great Northern and certain other Railway Companies) Bill,
    Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order (No. 3) (Aberdare, &c. Canals) Bill.
    Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order (No. 5) (Regent's Canal) Bill,
    Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order (No. 7) (River Ancholme, &c.) Bill,
    Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order (No. 8) (River Cam, &c.) Bill,
    Amendments to—
    Prize Courts Bill [Lords].
    Crown Lands Bill,
    Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order (No. 4) (Birmingham Canal) Bill,
    Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order (No. 10) (Lagan, &c. Canals) Bill,
    Changed from—
    Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order (No. 11) (Lagan, &c. Canals) Bill, with Amendments,
    Uniforms Bill, with an Amendment.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS—(No. 348) [changed from "CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS)"]ߞBILL.

    THIRD READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [14th August], "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    And which Amendment was, to leave out the words "now read the third time," and add the words "re-committed in respect of Clauses 24 and 25."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  COPYHOLD CONSOLIDATION BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.
  COAL MINES (CHECK WEIGHER) BILL [Lords].—(No. 344.)
  As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill road the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 359.)
  Read a second time, and committed for Saturday.

  TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) [REDEMPTION].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to redeem their liability in respect of guaranteed dividend on the share capital of Tramway Companies in Ireland by payment of a capital sum, to authorise the National Debt Commissioners to advance the sum required, and to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Board of Works, or (if not so made) out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, of any terminable annuity created for the repayment of such advance in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to amend The Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 18S3.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  NATIONAL GALLERY (IRELAND).
  Copy presented,—of Report of the Director to the Board of Governors and Guardians for the year 1893 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  STAMPS (CONTRACT OF MESSRS. DE LARUE).
  Copy presented,—of Treasury Minute, dated 6th August, 1894, relating to the Contract of Messrs. De la Rue for the Supply of Stamps for the use of the Inland Revenue and Post Office Departments, including those on Postcards and Wrappers [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CONVICT PRISONS (ENGLAND, &C.)
  Copy presented,—of Report of Directors for 1893–4 (Parts I. and II.) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented,—of Seventeenth Report of the Commissioners, with Appendix (Parts I. and II.) for the year ended 31st March, 1894; to lie upon the Table.
  JUDICIAL STATISTICS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented,—of Judicial Statistics for England and Wales for 1893 (Equity, Common Law, Civil and Canon Law), hitherto published as Part II. of the Judicial Statistics of England and Wales [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (BRECONSHIRE).
  Copy presented,—of Order of the Brecon County Council altering Polling
  1356
  Districts in the County [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  NAVY (COURTS MARTIAL).
  Copy presented,—of Returns of the number of Courts Martial held during 1893 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (HEALTH).
  Copy presented,—of Statistical Report of the Health of the Navy for the year 1893 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (SEA-GOING WARSHIPS, &C).
  Return presented,—relative thereto (in continuation of Parliamentary Papers, No. 396, of Session 1890–91, and No. 372, of Session 1893–4) [ordered 19th July; Lord George Hamilton]; to lie upon, the Table, and to be printed. [No. 299.]
  PUBLIC TRUSTEE (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
  Address for "Return of any State Regulations in force in the United States of America, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Belgium, and Sweden and Norway to secure the honest Administration of Trusts, and as to the office and remuneration of a Public Trustee."—(Colonel Howard Vincent.)
  PUBLIC TRUSTEE (COLONIES).
  Address for "Return of any State Regulations in force in Canada, New Zealand, Victoria, New South Wales, or Cape Colony to secure the honest Administration of Trusts, and as to the office and remuneration of a Public Trustee."—(Colonel Howard Vincent.)

  ARMY GUNS (RIFLED, IRON, AND STEEL).
  Address for "Return showing the number, description, name of designer, place of manufacture, and actual cost of the various Rifled Iron and Steel Guns supplied to the Naval and Land Services during the year 1892–3, showing whether each Gun is Laud or Naval (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 166, of Session 1893)."—(Mr. Batty Langley.)
  Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House, this day, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before One o'clock.

BUILDING SOCIETIES (No. 2) BILL. (No. 208.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, this Bill which I ask your Lordships to read a second time has been very carefully considered in the other House. Your Lordships will be aware that attention has recently been called to the very disastrous effects which has been produced owing to the failure of certain Building Societies, resulting in the loss by many of the working classes of this country of the product of many years of thrift. Although the measure has no doubt attracted public attention owing to the recent failures, and although I think it certain that those failures have facilitated the passage of the Bill through the other House by exciting a natural interest in the subject and a desire to see an amendment of the law, yet it does not represent anything that could be called panic legislation, inasmuch as the expediency of legislation in this direction has long been in view, and the provisions which are substantially embodied in this Bill have been long under consideration. The Bill does not propose to interfere with the management of their affairs by the Societies themselves. To attempt this would no doubt be a fatal policy; but it deals with what will probably prevent some of the disasters which we have recently seen. Hitherto, although accounts have been presented to the members and Registrar from time to time, yet on matters most material they have conveyed little or no information. Large sums have often been advanced on mortgage, and owing to the non-payment of interest the Society has entered into the possession of many of those mortgaged properties without any information on the subject being conveyed to the members, and without their knowing anything of what was going on. The
  1154
  extent to which this practice has prevailed will be apparent when I tell your Lordships what is shown by a Return which has been moved for of the value of the properties which have come into the possession of Societies owing to the non-fulfilment of obligations by mortgagors. The Societies are not under any statutory compulsion to make a Return. Two hundred and twenty Societies having £13,000,000 out on mortgage do not make any Return, but 716 Societies which have £28,000,000 on mortgage made Returns showing that they were in possession of properties themselves which had been mortgaged for no less than £7,315,000. No doubt those Societies which made Returns had in their possession mortgages in similar proportion, and this would mean that nearly 1,000 Societies have probably about £5,000,000 of mortgaged property which they have had to take into their own possession owing to the non-fulfilment of obligations. The Bill proposes to require that the Societies should show in their annual accounts what amounts are out on mortgage, not, of course, specifying the particular properties or the names of the mortgagees, but indicating what amounts have been advanced on individual properties, and on how many properties those advances have been made. The original object of these Building Societies was to encourage thrift by enabling advances to be made by means of which working men should become the owners of their own dwellings. But, unfortunately, many of these Societies have departed from the original purpose of their foundation, and they have become lending Societies in connection sometimes with speculating builders on extremely insufficient security. That is the first and probably the most vital provision of the Bill. In addition to this, power is given to 10 members of a Society to call upon the Registrar of Building Societies for the appointment of a person to examine the accounts and report upon them, and one-tenth of the members of a Society may at any time require the appointment of an Inspector, who may examine into the management and proceedings of the Society and the manner in which the Society is carried on. There are also provisions for auditing the accounts of the Society. I do not think I need trouble your Lordships

  1155
  in more detail with the measure. I am sure your Lordships will sympathise with its object. It will not fetter the conduct by the Societies of their own business, while on the other hand it will afford to their members such information as will be likely to induce an amount of care and caution in the management of Societies which has not hitherto always been shown, audit will protect their Members from such losses as those from which unfortunately in the past they have suffered.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I entirely concur with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack upon the propriety of reading this Bill a second time, and of giving it every assistance to enable it to be passed into law without delay. It deals with important matters which have attracted much public attention, and is likely to prevent the repetition of grave abuses. I have been written to in reference to this Bill by a firm of solicitors in whose judgment I place confidence and for whose respectability I can vouch, suggesting some Amendments; but I am bound to say as at present advised, having read the clauses in this Bill, I do not see the exact relevance of the suggestions made, and I have asked for further information. I do not, however, suggest that the noble and learned Lord should change the day he has fixed for the Committee stage on that account, and unless my mind goes with the Amendments I will not trouble your Lordships with them.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, he also had received communications from Scotland in regard to this Bill, one being from a gentleman whom he could trust in reference to one of the clauses as interfering with members of these Societies obtaining small amounts free of Stamp Duty. That privilege was reserved by some Societies, but would not, owing to the peculiar form of the drafting, he given to others. He would be glad to know from the noble and learned Lord whether he would accept; an Amendment which would meet the difficulty?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): The noble Lord has been good enough to communicate with me on this matter. Two points are mentioned:
  1156
  one that the Society referred to would be unable in future to make temporary advances to non-advanced members in respect of subscriptions standing to their credit. This Bill will make no difference, and whatever power existed before will remain after the Bill is passed. The other point is one of some substance. The Society referred to is at present registered under the Act of 1836, and the Stamp Duty for transactions under £500 is small. No doubt that exception is of some value. If the Society were allowed to register as proposed by the Bill under the Act of 1874, it would undoubtedly lose that exception. On the other hand, it would gain the advantage that, whereas the liability is unlimited under the Act of 1836, it would become limited under the Act of 1874, so that if they lost in one direction they would obtain the benefit in the other. If the Society desires to obtain the advantage of that exception, I do not think it is unreasonable that their wish should be complied with, inasmuch as that has been done in the case of certain Societies registered before 1855. I understand that the Society to which the noble Lord refers was registered in the following year, and if he desires to amend the Bill by substituting for the date 1855, that of 1856 or 1857, to meet the case, I should not feel inclined to resist the Amendment in that form.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House Tomorrow.

EQUALISATION OF RATES (LONDON) BILL.—(No. 207)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of ROSE-BERY): My Lords, I do not think that this Bill, which is not long in itself, although it involves some important points of principle and detail, will need a very lengthy explanation from me, for this simple reason—that it comes up to this House with the practically unanimous concurrence of all parties in the House of Commons. The Second and Third

  1157
  Readings were passed unanimously, and there were only two Divisions taken in Committee. Therefore, I am entitled to claim that it comes up to this House with a rare consensus of opinion from the other House of Parliament. Moreover, it represents the outcome of a very strong general feeling that there should be some assistance given from the richer parishes in the Metropolis to the needs of the poorer parishes. And here again I do not think I shall strike any note which is objectionable to the noble Lords opposite, because, as a matter of fact, all the steps which have been taken in this direction have been taken by Ministers who were Members of the late Cabinet. The first step was taken in 1867 by the constitution of a Common Poor Fund, under the auspices of Lord Cranbrook. The next step was taken in 1870 by Mr. Goschen, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he introduced a Bill giving a general contribution of 3d. a day for all indoor paupers of the Metropolis; the third step was taken by Mr. Ritchie in the Local Government Pill of 1888, when he allowed a portion of the Probate Duty Grant from Imperial sources to the purposes of the London County Council. I think, therefore, that the general principle of this Bill is not likely to meet with any opposition from your Lordships. The general principle involved is nothing more or less than this—namely, that we should endeavour by some measure of this kind to reduce the rating inequalities of the Metropolis, which are, as is known to your Lordships, sufficiently glaring, and which I will not trouble the House on this occasion by illustrating in detail. How does the Bill propose to redress these inequalities? It proposes to do so by levying a general rate of 6d. in the £ all over the Metropolis, which is to be handed over to the various parishes in proportion to the extent of their respective populations. I think there is no practical objection to the basis of population being taken, although some have thought that it was too rough-and-ready a method of ascertaining the wants of a parish. But, as a matter of fact, after a great deal of threshing out in Committee in the House of Commons, I think it has been ascertained that population is the only practical basis upon which this assistance can be given. There are two other bases which have a certain plausi-
  1158
  bility about them which have been urged by various sections of opinion; one is, that the contribution in aid should be given in proportion to the sanitary expenditure of the various parishes. Well, I think it is clear that any such provision would tend at once to local extravagance, and would tend therefore to defeat the very object which we have in view. The other principle that has been suggested is this—that a uniform rate should be raised all over the Metropolis and applied generally by uniform management. But uniform management means central management, and there is a great difference between even great towns like Birmingham and Manchester, for instance, and such a vast city as this Metropolis. So long as a diversity exists in our municipal administration, think that uniform management for this purpose would lead to nothing but mismanagement and extravagance. The area of London is too great for it to be treated in that manner, and therefore I think we come, by a process of exhaustion, to the remedy proposed by tins Bill. As a matter of fact, the remedy proposed by this Bill will work fairly enough in practice. All the most wealthy and lightly-rated parishes will pay, and all the poorest and most heavily-rated parishes will receive. But the average rate of parishes receiving will remain above the average rate of the Metropolis, and the average rate of those parishes which will contribute will remain below the average rate of the Metropolis all the same. The average rate in the contributing parishes for the two years ending last year was 5s. l. 3d. in the £1. This will he increased by the Bill on the present calculations to 5s. 4·7d. The average rate for the same period of the receiving parishes was 6s. 3d., and under the Bill it will be reduced to 6s. I will only trouble you with one more figure showing the general fairness and justice of the new arrangement. At present the difference between the average rates of the parishes that will contribute and receive is Is. 1·7d. in the £1; but by the new system that difference will be reduced to 7d., and I believe that you may draw a hard-and-fast line, and say that in all the parishes in which the rateable value per head of population is above £1 18s. those parishes will con-

  1159
  tribute, and where the average rate is below that figure those parishes will receive. I have no hesitation in saying, therefore, again, that from the Lest calculations we can make we believe that the general arrangement under the Bill will work out an extremely fair one. Now the mechanism is this: the levying of the rate will be left to the Loudon County Council. Each year they will fix a general rate all over London and determine the contribution of each parish on the valuation lists, and that rate will be apportioned according to population to the various sanitary districts. Of course, my Lords, it will be in the main a sort of Clearing House arrangement of accounts: those parishes where the rating is above receiving the balance which the other parishes will have to pay. In order to make this apportionment as accurate as possible we have determined not to wait for the next Decennial Census, but have provided for a Census being taken in March, 1896; and by implication it will follow that the next Census, which I suppose will be taken in 1901, will apply as a Quinquennial Census with regard to value for the purpose of this Bill. Now I come to the other part of the Bill which provides for the application of this fund, which of course in one sense is scarcely a less important matter than the relief of the poorer parishes. The first application will be to sanitation. I think no one can doubt that the proper sanitation of the whole of Loudon affects all the inhabitants of this great eit3r to an equal degree. Infection may come from one of the poorer districts and spread over the wealthier districts, and therefore they have all one common sanitary interest. I hope that in many of the districts the sanitary necessities are already sufficiently provided for. The next application of the grant will be to paving and the question of lighting. Everybody knows that the roads in the poorer districts are not so well kept up as those in other districts, and that they are kept up at much greater expense. Then as to lighting, anyone who penetrates the regions particularly in the East End of London knows that the darkness is due to the inadequacy of the funds for the purpose of lighting. The darkness of the streets was mentioned by the police in connection with the Whitechapel murders as a source of actual
  1160
  danger to life in the Metropolis. It may be, however, that in some of the districts which are to receive, all those proposals are already sufficiently provided for. This Bill will come to the relief of these districts, and I shall be glad to see that the proposed reductions are carried out without any sacrifice of efficiency. I think when we compare the roads in some of the parishes with those in the parish, for instance, in which I live, we must admit that there is a margin for considerable reduction and consequent relief to the poorer ratepayers. With regard to sanitary efficiency, I may mention that the Bill also gives power to the Local Government Board to act when the application of the grant is not properly carried out. That is a power which, in the opinion of the Department most interested, it may never be necessary to apply, but it is one which is necessary in such a Bill. I shall not further delay your Lordships, as various Bills have to come before you; but I do recommend the Bill to both political Parties on the ground of its being a boon to those in this great Metropolis, in whom both sides have of late taken so much interest. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a" —(The Earl of Rosebery.)
  LORD MONK BRETTONhoped the Bill would not go forth to the world with a blemish on the face of it. It was called a Bill for the equalisation of rates, but did not equalise them. It hardly even answered to the Preamble that it "aided in the equalisation of rates." Many inequalities and anomalies would still be left, and others would be created, though it did rough justice, as it took from the richer in aid of the poorer districts. Some years ago he had had to consider carefully what was the best broad and general basis for the distribution of grants in aid, and he arrived at the conclusion that no better basis than population could be adopted, because that insured aid being given where needs and poverty were presumably largest. The reduction of rates had been mentioned as one object of the Bill, but it was not a desirable one. The rates in the poorer districts of the Metropolis were largely and in some cases almost entirely, paid by compounding house-owners. On the

  1161
  other hand, the contributions to those poorer districts would be levied not so much upon owners as upon tenants in the West End. A sufficient answer to that was that the occupiers of houses in those wealthier districts were, as a class, more affluent than occupiers in the East, North, and South of the Metropolis. The weak point in the Bill, how-over, seemed to be that the grants in slid might inure in the poorer parishes to the benefit of the compounding house-owners, and not of the poor tenants, the people who it was desired, in the main, should reap the benefit. If the Local Authorities acted in the spirit of the Bill they would raise the same amount of rates, as at present, and make the same expenditure upon sanitation, lighting, and paving, and then devote the grant in addition for the latter purposes only. By doing so, they would benefit the poorer tenants as well as the whole community. If, on the other hand, they reduced their rates by the amount of the grants, and only spent the same total sum as now upon works, improvements, and sanitation, they would simply he putting a bonus in the pockets of the compound house-owners. Which purpose would the grants be devoted to? If they were divided and applied for both purposes they would be frittered away. Happily, in the latter stages of the Bill in the other House Amendments were inserted defining the purposes to which the grants were to be devoted and the order of their application; and, further, that the Local Authorities should render detailed accounts annually to the Local Government Board of their total expenditure and of the grants separately, power being given to the Local Government Board to order payment? of the grants to be withheld by the London County Council from defaulting Local Authorities. That showed the intention that the grants should be applied for sanitary purposes rather than in reduction of the rates. While approving of the Bill he was afraid that its title would lead to disappointment in the poorer districts, where it would be expected that a great deal more was going to be done for them, while the whole fund distributed would only amount to about £220,000 a year.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It would perhaps be hardly courteous to the
  1162
  noble Lord the Prime Minister if some voice did not proceed from these Benches in respect to the Bill of which he has moved the Second Heading. My own opinion with regard to this Bill is that it does rough justice indeed, but that it is justice on the whole, and I myself shall vote in favour of its passing. The noble Lord who has just sat down has, I think, established the fact that the Bill compelled contributions by the tenants of the West End to the landlords of the East End. I am not a landowner in the East End. I respect them very much, and I am very glad they are to get relief; but whether this will benefit the poor people in the East End I have very great doubt. Again, although I am thoroughly content to accept the Bill, I do not accept the arguments used by the noble Earl in moving the Second Beading. He seemed to me to accept the essential unity of all that is included in the Metropolitan area—that it is not only a constitutional arrangement, but one in actual fact. Now, I doubt very much whether there is any great unity of interest in respect of matters for parochial expenditure between Hammersmith and Mile End or between Paddington and Clapham, which are all deeply interested in many of the subjects for the expenditure authorised under this Bill. It is a constitutional fiction such as we are constantly obliged to employ, that the various parts of the Metropolis are equally interested in the parochial affairs of all or any of them. It is a constitutional fiction to which we must adhere, because it is convenient, and on the whole, as I say, rough justice is done. There is another reason why to myself personally —I wish to include no one else—this particular kind of legislation is grateful. I believe it has a tendency in the direction of a very much larger measure to which, I think, we shall ultimately come. It has a tendency in favour of general centralisation and getting rid of the local levying of rates. In past times the local levying of rates was an exceedingly wise measure, because it tended greatly to economy and did not inflict any particular injustice. But the economy has been growing less and the injustice greater, and I doubt very much whether the time has not come—if it has not come now it will speedily come—when the injustice inflicted by the local system,

  1163
  of which the main effect is to throw the expenditure in which all are interested upon one particular and comparatively small class of property, must be regarded as greater than the convenience resulting from the economy of localisation. I will not undertake to say, and I am far from pledging myself to the opinion, that the time has come when any particular measure ought to be introduced in order to carry these views into effect, for I am fully alive to the difficulties which are involved; but I rather look upon it as a counsel of perfection, to which we ought to adhere, that we ought to work towards that centralisation of expenditure and of taxation of which one of the main effects must be to relieve the particular class of property on which all this expenditure is now most unjustly thrown. The Bill, therefore, tends in a direction with which I sympathise, but I again say that I by no means foresee in the immediate or reasonable future the possibility of giving effect to those views. I believe the tendency of events is in their favour, and that localisation both of expenditure and of levy must gradually diminish both in popularity and availability. When we shall come to such remedy I do not know; but I think in the meantime this is a step, and a safe step, in that direction, and for that reason, as well as for other reasons, I am myself glad that it has been brought before Parliament.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I have only to say one word with reference to what fell from the noble Lord below the Gangway. His reference to the compounding landlord had some atom of truth in it, but I think the noble Marquess in referring to it pressed the point rather further than the case warranted when he said it was contribution by the tenants of the West End to the landlords of the East End, though doubtless the temptation to the epigram was irresistible. At the same time, it must be understood that this is in its essence a rough-and-ready attempt to redress inequalities of rating, and it is as such that the Government presents it. If we were to go into the details of the matter, we should be confronted with innumerable difficulties and anomalies, and it would take a much larger Bill to redress them. I must also protest against the objection taken by the noble Lord below the
  1164
  Gangway to the title of the Bill. "Equalisation of Rates" is the short title of the Bill on the outside, but the full title set out in the body of the measure—namely, "a Bill to make better provision for the equalisation of rates in different parts of Loudon"—is, I submit, an accurate and candid account of the Bill. If the noble Lord chooses for the purposes of his argument to take the short title put on the back of the Bill, that is one thing; but it is not the title of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (BORROWING POWERS) BILL. (No. 209.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HAWKESBURYsaid, this was a very short Bill. Its object was simply to determine a question which had arisen upon a section of the Housing of the Working Classes Act of 1890. That Act authorised the replacing of the dwellings of persons whose homes had been found to be in an insanitary condition, and the Local Government Board was empowered to direct the Local Authority to carry out its provisions. A question had arisen with regard to the bororwing powers in reference to larger and smaller areas. The Local Government Board had always considered that the necessary power of borrowing was given in the smaller, as it undoubtedly was in the larger areas, and had made orders accordingly. As, however, the point had been raised, it was thought desirable to bring in this Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Hawkesbury.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.—(No. 204.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, although this is probably the largest Bill ever brought before you, I need detain you but a moment in moving the Second Reading. It is a Bill for consolidating all the legislation on the subject. The matter was referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, and was partly proceeded with last Session. The Bill was again brought in this Session, and referred to a Joint Committee, which sat for many days and thoroughly examined all its provisions assisted by representatives of all parties interested in them. In the result a measure has been produced which is likely to give very general satisfaction. I have only to say that a communication was made to me yesterday in which certain persons complained that the Bill had been passed hurriedly through Parliament. I can give an assurance that no Bill was ever more carefully considered. They call attention to two points in which they consider the law has been changed to their disadvantage. I have looked into the matter, and can assure them that they are entirely mistaken; the Bill simply reproduces the existing enactments and makes no alteration that could be to their disadvantage. I trust this explanation may remove any apprehensions that may have been entertained, and I beg to move the Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2il accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

UNIFORMS BILL.—(No. 175.)

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved an Amendment to include music-halls in regard to uniforms worn in public performances.
  Amendment moved, in Clause 2, line 21, sub-section (b), after ("a") to insert ("music-hall or").
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

CROWN LANDS BILL.—(No. 199.)

  THIRD BEADING.
  The Queen's consent signified; Bill read 3a (according to Order).
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): I have to move a merely verbal Amendment. When this Bill was first introduced there was a somewhat lengthy Schedule containing a number of Acts which it was proposed should be repealed. Those have now disappeared, except two which come sufficiently under a section of the Act. I move, therefore, an Amendment to leave out Clause 14 and the Schedule, which is now entirely useless.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 210.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved to omit Sub-section 4 of the clause, providing that
  "the Board shall comply with any instructions which may be issued by the Secretary to Scotland."
  He took objection to this on the ground that it gave an undue and unnecessary power to the Secretary for Scotland. The danger of enacting such a provision as this was that it would encourage persons to put pressure upon the Secretary for Scotland to decide questions connected with particular cases of administration in their favour.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out Sub-section 4.—(The Earl of Camper-down.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, that if the sub-section remained in the Bill the Secretary for Scotland would be in a very anomalous position. He might find himself in a minority of one on the Board in Edinburgh, and yet on returning

  1167
  to his office in London might overthrow their decision by a stroke of his pen.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he was quite ready to accept the Amendment. He believed the words were surplusage, and had probably been put in by a too ardent admirer of the Secretary for Scotland.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 agreed to, with verbal Amendment.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, in moving an Amendment, that it was thought when this clause was first drafted there were no legal proceedings outstanding in which the Board of Supervision were concerned. It had been found that was not the case, and words were necessary to avoid difficulty.
  Amendment moved, in page 3, line 20, after ("executed") insert ("or of any action or proceeding raised.")—(The Lord Tweedmouth.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 8, 9, and 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved an Amendment in this clause, which enacted that a woman otherwise possessing the qualification for being registered on any County Council or Municipal Register of electors, should not be disqualified by marriage from being registered, provided that a husband and wife should not both be registered in respect of the same property. He proposed to amend the clause by substituting "qualification" for "property." The Bill would then, he said, be an enfranchising instead of a disfranchising measure, though he did not think this clause would greatly increase the electoral roll. There was no reason why two persons, either as owner or tenant, should not be upon the Register. Unless this Amendment were accepted they would run the risk of disfranchising persons unable to subdivide their property and enfranchise those who could do so.
  Amendment moved, in page 5, line 2, to leave out ("property") and to insert ("qualification").—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHopposed the Amendment, which, in his opinion, might give rise to many bogus qualifications. Moreover, the word in the clause was the same as that used in the English Bill. If it would meet the views of the noble Lord to insert "qualified" instead of "registered" there would be no objection.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHthought the proposed change would not be worth making, and as the Government objected to the Amendment he would not press it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYwas sorry no Scotch lawyers were present, but his impression was that the noble Lord opposite would not gain the object he had in view by the clause as it stood. The lessee and the freeholder of a house would still be two separate persons.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHwas not sufficiently learned in the law to be able to reply to the suggestion, but he had been advised that the object would be attained by keeping the words as they were.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 12.
  Drafting Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY moved to substitute "sheriff" for "county," as the Registers would be confided to the Sheriff Clerk, who would be the proper person to make them up.
  Amendment moved, in page 6, line 13, to leave out ("county") and to insert ("sheriff").—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, the Government were in this case indifferent. The change suggested was not important, but as there seemed to be some difference of opinion between Sheriff Clerks and County Clerks he had no objection.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, the reason for the Amendment was that as the Sheriff Clerk was the official

  1169
  appointed to make up the roll lie should he responsible for circulating it. It seemed unnecessary to divide the work between two officials.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYthought the Amendment would make the Bill more homogeneous.
  LORD TWEEDMOTJTHpreferred to keep the Bill as it was.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved a new clause modifying and altering the Bill in its application to parishes in Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Leith. He said the provisions of the Bill as they affected the larger Municipal Authorities would introduce most serious difficulties and would cause needless confusion and a great deal of unnecessary expenditure. Take Glasgow as a concrete case. That city was divided into five parishes, one wholly burghal and the other four partly burghal and partly landward. The affairs of the Parochial Body were managed entirely apart from the Town Council. The municipal elections for the different wards and parishes took place every year. The Parish Council elections took place once in three years, and yet, under the Bill the Municipal Authorities were obliged to prepare the Register every year. That would put them to great expense. He was informed that the cost of adapting the electoral roll for the purposes of the Parish Council would be greater than the expense of preparing a special roll. Again, in large towns great difficulty would arise from having the elections for the Town Council and the Parish Council on the same day. That would certainly be the case in such places as Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Dundee, where the provision in the 15th clause would cause great confusion. If the contemplated arrangements had been carefully examined they would not have been adopted. It was becoming more and more the custom for working classes in large towns to poll late in the evening, and already great difficulty was experienced in the voting arrangements. If parish elections with their multiplicity of candidates were to be superadded, the difficulties would be increased. Double
  1170
  elections would have to be held with the same Presiding Officer. He had received a letter from Sir J. Marwick, the Town Clerk of Glasgow, pointing out that the scheme of the Bill would introduce great confusion into the elections in that city. The Secretary for Scotland in the other House admitted that the provision in the Bill could not stand, but the right hon. Gentleman suggested that, any amendment should be postponed until some time before the second election took place. It seemed strange to him that when a defect in the Bill was pointed out and recognised it could not be at once remedied. The proposal he now made, which was approved and supported by Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Dundee, would meet the difficulty that was apprehended. He had reason to believe that other large Municipalities in Scotland took a similar view, and he hoped the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment.
  Moved to insert as a new clause—
  "This Act shall apply to the parishes specified in Schedule V. annexed to this Act, subject to the modifications and alterations following (that is to say):—

  (1.) In the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, and in every third year thereafter, simultaneously with the preparation of the Municipal Register in a burgh within which any such parish is wholly or partly situated, the assessor charged with the preparation thereof shall prepare, and shall arrange in the parish wards fixed by or under the provisions of this Act, a separate list of the persons qualified to be parish electors within a burghal parish or within the burghal part of a parish; and the whole enactments of this or any other Act relative to the registration of burgh electors or parish electors, including the provisions relating to officers and dates, and to numbering and placing distinctive marks on the Register or list, shall, with the necessary alterations of notices and other forms, and other necessary variations, extend and apply to the preparation of the said list, and it shall be lawful to object to the insertion or omission of the name of any person in the part of said list applicable to a parish ward as nearly as may be in the same manner, and subject to the same provisions as to appeal and otherwise, as in the case of any entry in or omission from any Municipal Register or list;

  (2.) The nomination of Parish Councillors in such parishes shall take place on the second Tuesday, and the election of such Councillors on the third Tuesday of November, in the year one thousand eight

  1171
  hundred and ninety eight, and in every third year thereafter;

  (3.) The expenditure incurred in the preparation of the said separate list of parish electors in so far as relating to any such parish, and the expenditure incurred in the election of Parish Councillors for such parish, shall be a charge upon the poor rate levied therein.

  SCHEDULE V.
  Parishes.

  Glasgow.

  Barony.

  Govan Combination.

  Eastwood.

  Cathcart.

  Edinburgh City.

  St. Cuthbert's Combination.

  Liberton.

  Duddington.

  South Leith.

  North Leith."—(Lard Balfour of Burleigh.)

  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, the proposal of the noble Lord was practically that special treatment in regard to registration and election should be extended to certain places in Scotland. Their Lordships would agree that primá facie this was not a desirable thing to do, but that there should rather be one system of treatment for the whole country. It was true that Glasgow was anxious for the clause; but, so far as he had been able to ascertain, Edinburgh and Leith, two of the other places mentioned in the Schedule, were quite indifferent. The matter, however, was not a pressing one; no real difficulty would arise in the election of 1898, and he thought it would be well to wait until they had practical experience of the Act, and if difficulty arose such as was apprehended it would be open to them to take action to meet it in a way that would apply generally to the country. At present in Edinburgh there were constantly occurring Road, Trust, and Municipal elections on the same day without trouble arising. He did not think the noble Lord had made out a pressing case, and in those circumstances he could not assent to the proposed new clause.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, it would be absolutely impossible in Glasgow to carry out the provisions of the Bill as it stood without great difficulty and expense. He failed to appreciate the objections of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to special legislation for certain places in order to meet the difficulty, and he hoped that this exception would
  1172
  be made at the request of the Corporation of Glasgow, and that the Amendment would be agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHthought the noble Lord had not sufficiently shown cause against the insertion of the proposed clause, and was afraid he must trouble the Committee to go to a Division upon it.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that Glasgow was one of the greatest cities in the Empire, and had a very large population. It was in peculiar circumstances, because it had been eating up the neighbouring Municipalities for several years. Sir James Marwick was an authority of the highest standing, and nothing could be stronger than his language on the subject in the letter read by the noble Lord, showing that the Bill as it stood would be almost unworkable in Glasgow. He, therefore, could not see why the noble Lord should give way on the point.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYdid not think the matter was one of vital gravity. Still, it did seem a mistake to give exceptional treatment to Glasgow in the matter, especially as such treatment, so far from giving satisfaction to the rest of Scotland, would create a great deal of jealousy, even in adjoining districts in Lanarkshire. Moreover, after the very strong expression of opinion on this very matter by Scotch Members in the other House, and in Grand committee, he did not think their Lordships should agree to the Amendment. It was a matter which might well be left to be dealt with as his noble Friend had suggested; but if the Amendment was pressed the Government must, of course, yield to superior numbers.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYappealed to the noble Lord, in the circumstances, not to press the Amendment. There was a good deal in what the Prime Minister had said, but attention had not been generally called to the matter in Scotland. In Glasgow, however, the mischief pointed out would work more seriously, and in other large towns than in other places. Elections for parishes would overlap ward elections, and the result would be very inconvenient. The matter had not been much considered in Aberdeen, where public opinion would probably be in favour of the noble Lord's suggestion. The proper

  1173
  time to deal with the whole matter would be in 1898 when the elections would take place.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHobserved that, in addition to the cases mentioned, the representatives of the Parochial Board of Dundee—which was not by any means an insignificant body— came up specially when they heard that this clause was to be proposed in order to have their parish put into the Schedule.
  THE EAEL OF ROSEBERY: Why did you refuse?
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, that the representatives only arrived to-day, and the notice was only given yesterday; but if the House should pass this clause, he was going to put Dundee down for inclusion in it to-morrow. When it was said that representations had not been made in favour of this clause, he would remind their Lordships that the clause was only put on the Paper last night, so that it was impossible for the exact text of the clause to have been seen by those to whom it had not been specially sent. He sincerely hoped the clause would be adopted, and he believed before the Bill could leave this House there would be additional representations in favour of other places being put in.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, if there was to be exceptional treatment owing to exceptional difficulty, then the same treatment should be extended to all large towns. As the matter referred only to what would take place in 1898, he did not think this was really one of the most vital matters in the Bill.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHobserved that this proposal was moved on the Report stage in the House of Commons when the Representatives of these great towns were in the House of Commons, on whom the greatest pressure could have been brought to bear if their had been a strong feeling among their constituencies in the direction of this clause. What did the Members of the House of Commons do? They did not even divide in favour of their own clause. That showed that the feeling on the part of the Representatives of the large towns in the House of Commons could not have been very strong.
  Clause negatived.
  Clause 13.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY moved an Amendment providing that a copy of every Order made under this section should be transmitted to the Board within seven days after it was made, instead of 14 days as provided in the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH*LORD TWEEDMOUTH moved, in line 40, after ("Council,") to insert ("or Town Councillors").
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 16.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY moved, in line 41, to leave out ("the principal Act or"). He said his object in putting down the Amendment was to call attention to a rather important point in connection with the Bill. As the Bill was originally introduced, the sixth part dealt with the Local Government Act (Scotland), and brought in certain Amendments to that Act which were considered a most valuable addition to the Bill. Owing to the pressure of time that part was dropped, and Clause 16 was now the only part of the Bill which affected the former Act of Parliament, and it affected it in a very important manner. This clause entirely changed the method of nomination and election of County Councillors, and it was for the Government to consider whether, in a Bill dealing entirely with Parish Councils and from which all matters relating to County Councils had been dropped, it was advisable to bring in a clause the effect of which was entirely to alter the mode of election of County Councillors. He was not at all sure that the machinery provided for the elections by this clause was not better than the present machinery, but it was certainly an anomaly in a Bill dealing with Parish Councils to bring in a clause dealing with the nomination of County Councillors.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHpointed out that the County Council and the Parish Council elections were going to take place on the same day and in the same

  1175
  room, and it would be a very inconvenient thing if one set of Rules was to be enforced with regard to County Councils and another set with regard to Parish Councils. Surely it was better to make the change here, and allow the same Rules 10 be applicable to both elections, which wore held at the same time and in the same place.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: I will not press the Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 17 agreed to.
  Clause 18.
  The following two Amendments were on the Paper: —
  Lord BALFOUR:
  "Line 15, leave out from ('thereof') to the end of the clause, and insert ('If an equality of votes occur between two or more candidates whose position on the poll is such that all of them cannot be elected, the Returning Officer shall decide which of such candidates shall be returned as duly elected.'")
  The Earl of CAMPERDOWN:
  "Line 15, to leave out from ('two') to ('can') in line 16, and insert ('or more candidates receive an equal number of votes, being more than.'")
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Has the Government any objection to this Amendment?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he was quite indifferent as to which sot of words were taken, but he preferred those of the noble Earl.
  The Earl of CAMPERDOWN The Earl of CAMPERDOWN moved his Amendment, which was accepted, as was also a purely consequential Amendment thereto.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Is it intended that the Returning Officer should have a casting vote even if he does not happen to be a voter in the parish?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Oh, certainly, that must be so.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 19.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, that before he came to the part of the clause to which his Amendment referred he should like to ask a question of the Government. He thought an under-
  1176
  taking was given in another place that the Government would put down an Amendment to get rid of the determination by lot as to which of certain persons should be chairman in the event of an equality of votes. He did not know whether they persisted in adhering to this gambling method of settling who should be chairman. As he understood an undertaking was given to consider the matter, he should like to ask what had been the result of that consideration?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I am afraid I must plead my want of cognisance of such an undertaking. I will make inquiries about it, and, if necessary, make some change on the Third Reading.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in line 20, after the second ("Council") insert ("sitting as a district committee"). He said, he thought these words were obviously necessary as a matter of drafting. It could be the intention of the Government only to put a representative from the Parish Council on the County Council when it sat as a district committee in those places in which no district had been formed. He thought serious misapprehension might arise if the words were not inserted, and, at any rate, they could do no harm.
  Amendment moved, in line 20, after the second ("Council"), insert ("sitting as a district committee").—(The Lord Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in line 23, at end of the clause, add—
  ("Provided always that, in the case of parishes partly landward and partly burghal, he shall be appointed by the landward committee from among their own number").
  The Amendment, he said, was to provide that where a landward committee was appointed, and which acted as part of the Parochial Board for certain purposes, the representation of the landward part of the parish on the district committee should be made by the landward committee, and not by the whole Parochial Board. This was obviously just, because it was only the part of the landward parish which was interested in the work of the district committee. The matters relating to the roads and public health

  1177
  were under the management of the Municipal Authority; therefore, the interests of the municipal and the landward part of the parish often conflicted, and it was not fair that an overwhelming number of the Parochial Board should appoint representatives who might often properly have to decide things against their interest. Many instances had been sent to him, but he would only cite one. Paisley was in this position. So far as the Abbey parish of Paisley was concerned, there were at the last Census more than 25,000 people within the burgh, 9,000 within the burgh of Johnstone, and 7,000 in the landward part of the parish. The valuation of the landward parish was very large in proportion to the population. The valuation of the landward part was £55.000, whilst that of the two burghs concerned was about £150,000 or £160,000. It seemed to him not arguable that the whole Parochial Board under these circumstances should appoint a representative to the district committee. He hoped the Government would accept both this and the consequential Amendment upon the Definition Clause.
  Amendment moved, in line 23, at end of the Clause, add—?
  ("Provided always that, in the case of parishes partly landward and partly burghal, lie shall be appointed by the landward committee from among their own number.")—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, the Government saw no objection to the insertion of the words.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.
  Clause 22.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in line 33, at the end of the clause, insert—
  "Provided always as follows: —A. Where relief has been or shall be granted to any person otherwise than upon an order or judgment of the Sheriff pronounced under section seventy-three of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, it shall be lawful for any two Parish Councillors, or for any live ratepayers of the parish, to lodge a written complaint with the Sheriff of the county in which the parish from which such person has claimed relief, or any portion of such parish, is situated, complaining that such person is not legally entitled to relief, and set-
  1178
  ting forth the ground of such complaint, and the said Sheriff shall forthwith, if he be of opinion that such person is, upon the facts stated, not legally entitled to relief, order intimation of such application to be made to such person, and also to the clerk of the Parish Council, requiring them, within a time to be specified in the order, to give in a statement in writing showing the reasons why the relief was granted, and the Sheriff, after such procedure as he shall deem necessary, shall make an Order finding such person to be legally either entitled or not entitled to relief, and such order shall be final and binding on the Parish Council: Provided that nothing herein contained shall be construed to enable the said Sheriff to determine on the adequacy of the relief, or to interfere in respect of the amount of relief to be given in any individual case."
  "B. Where relief has been or shall be granted to any person, it shall be lawful for any two Parish Councillors, or any five ratepayers of the parish, to lodge a written complaint with the Board, complaining that the relief granted is excessive in amount, or is of a kind that should not have been granted, and setting forth the grounds of such complaint; and the Board shall, after such intimation as shall be deemed proper, investigate the grounds of the complaint: and if upon inquiry it shall appear to the Board that such complaint is well founded in whole or in part, the Board may order the Parish Council to reduce the amount or to vary the kind of relief granted as may be specified in the Order, and the Parish Council shall make such reduction or variation accordingly: Provided that where any such complaint has been, made and disposed of no subsequent complaint touching the same poor person shall be competent unless either (1) such poor person has in the meantime ceased to be in receipt of relief, or (2) such a material change of circumstances is I averred as in the opinion of the Board warrants a further investigation."
  He said, that the two clauses raised a matter the importance of which would not be questioned for a moment by the Government, whatever their views might be about the merits of the proposal. The real object of the clauses was to prevent maladministration of the Poor Law. So far as the general part of Scotland was concerned, they on that side of the House had accepted with perfect cheerfulness the proposed change in the body which was to administer the Poor Law. The Government themselves would not doubt it was a very great change that, for the first time in the history of Scotland, the administration of the Poor Law-was to be put into the bauds of a purely and entirely popularly-elected body. They had accepted that proposal of the Government because they had perfect confidence in their fellow-countrymen that they would not make a bad use of the power so entrusted to them, and they

  1179
  also felt that the system of rating in Scotland gave them very considerable freedom in the matter. But there were in Scotland parishes here and there where this proposal would be very dangerous, and it could not be denied that very considerable apprehensions did exist in the minds of persons well qualified to judge as to the dangers which might arise. There was an exact precedent in the existing law for the proposals which he made. The Poor Law of I84o, which was the first Poor Law as such known to Scotland, put the administration of relief into the bauds of bodies which largely represented the owners of different parishes, and so anxious were the promoters of that measure to secure fairness and justice to all concerned that they put two provisions into it, one of which gave to anybody who had applied for relief and had been refused it the right of appeal to the Sheriff. If the application was altogether rejected the appeal lay to the Sheriff under the existing law. Then, again, if the Parochial Board gave relief, but in the opinion of the applicant did not give sufficient relief, the appeal lay to the Board of Supervision. The reason which underlay the difference was not-far to seek. In the first case, it was considered to be a matter of law whether the person was really entitled, under the Act, to relief at all; but if the Parochial Board admitted the right to relief, the question of the adequacy of the relief was a matter of administration rather than of law, and, therefore, the appeal lay to the Central Authority and not to the Law Courts. He had already admitted that there could not be danger all over Scotland, but when there was danger of insufficient relief under the old constitution of Parochial Boards it would be pedantic to deny there was not the same danger here and therein the opposite direction. The proposals he made were these: The first proviso (a) provided that if two members of a Parish Council or five ratepayers in a parish thought that relief was wrongly given to any person they might appeal to the Sheriff. The proviso (b) provided that if the right to relief was admitted, but was considered to be wrong in kind, an appeal might lie to the Board. He knew that the existing circumstances had worked absolutely without friction and difficulty, and it seemed to him it was
  1180
  not difficult to establish that under the constitution of the Boards as they were now proposed there would, in some cases, be representation without taxation, and the duty of administering the Poor Law would be admitted to be about as delicate and difficult a duty as could be entrusted to anybody. The people in many parishes who would never have to pay a farthing of the rates directly would not only influence, but have the absolute and complete control of the elections. He put forward his proposals in no spirit of hostility to the Bill, but simply and solely from a desire that there should be a means of redress, inoffensive in its nature, but perfectly effectual should difficulty and danger arise. He hoped the Government would accept his clause. He was quite aware he might be told that when it was proposed to discuss them in another place they were ruled out of Order. But doctors apparently differed, because they were admitted by the Chairman of the Grand Committee and discussed at considerable length, and it came as a great surprise upon those who were advocating a proposal of this kind when it was found impossible to take the judgment of the other House upon it. When they transferred the whole administration of the Poor Law from the bodies who at present administered it to popularly-elected bodies it was only right and reasonable that some such safeguards as these should be put in. He had framed the Amendment in a slightly different way from the form in which the matter was discussed in the other House, although the merits were not substantially different, and he now proposed that the clauses should be inserted as a proviso to that part of the Bill which dealt entirely with the transference of powers and duties to the Parish Councils.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, the clause moved by the noble Lord referred to the administration of the Poor Law, but the Bill did not touch the administration of the Poor Law in any way whatever, but simply transferred the Poor Law from the existing Parochial Boards to the new bodies—the Parish Councils. Mr. Speaker in the other House ruled this proposed clause out of Order, and ho should like to ask the Chairman of

  1181
  Committees whether they were in Order?
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): The noble Lord cannot do that.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, that at any rate he would not discuss the details of the clause. He would merely say that in the view of the Government it was not desirable to enter into the question of the Poor Law on this Bill, which proposed only to transfer the powers as they were from the Parochial Boards to the Parish Councils, and therefore they could not accept this Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLdid not wish to speak upon the technical question of Order, but, it was really a little strong to say that this Bill did not touch the question of the Poor Law. It changed and completely revolutionised the body and the principle on which the body was constituted to administer the Poor Law. There were parts of the country where a very small part of the rental was paid by a very large part of the constituency, and along the West Coast of Scotland there were parishes where the whole power of rating would be put into the hands of a very poor class of voters who would pay a mere fraction of the total rates they imposed on their neighbours. Setting aside any accusation of a disposition to job, the noble Lord must have observed the extreme kindness of small crofters in the West of Scotland with regard to their neighbours. They were most amiable towards them; they were generally in close connection with them, and nothing could be more amiable than their disposition towards them. He had lately had repeated application from the holders of crofting townships to allow persons to squat upon their lands, and although they knew that had led to grievous evil in former times yet their infinite benevolence and good feeling towards their neighbours made them uniformly willing to write letters of recommendation that people should be allowed to squat on their farms. The same disposition would undoubtedly prevail in the constitution of the new Parochial Board, and he could not help thinking that not only was there a danger, but a very high probability that in many cases persons would be admitted to relief who by law were not entitled to it, and
  1182
  even persons who were entitled to it would be given a larger benevolence than was their duo. All his noble Friend wished to obtain was the security of the existing law in which they had an appeal in regard to the legality of persons entitled to relief, and also to the Board as regarded the more than sufficiency of the relief. In his opinion, loosely or lavishly administered poor rates by persons not really responsible for any great share of the rates was one of the greatest calamities that they could inflict upon any county, and it undoubtedly discouraged enterprise and the taking of laud in those parishes. In such circumstances, reasonable precautions ought to be taken by Parliament in giving extensive powers to a body which was entirely new, and ho hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he had a little more confidence in the small holders in the West of Scotland than the noble Duke seemed to have, and he had no fear that they were going to be unduly lavish with their poor relief. But was it really worth while proceeding with these clauses? If they put them in the Bill they would, on reaching the Commons, be ruled out of Order without discussion.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: How do you know that?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The Speaker has already ruled them out of Order as going beyond the scope of the Bill. Any safeguards there are with regard to the administration of Poor Law relief by the Parochial Boards are still retained. Nothing is lost in the way of appeal or otherwise, and, further, the Parochial Boards in Scotland are already to some extent elective; and, therefore, the difference between the two bodies is not so great as the noble Duke would have us believe.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHdid not see how the clauses, if put in by this House, could be summarily ruled out of Order in another place. Those who had discretion there might refuse to accept them, but it seemed to him the claim put forward that because the authorities of one House had ruled a certain proposal out of Order, such ruling was, therefore, to govern the decision of another House was a very dangerous claim in a matter of privilege, and, so far

  1183
  from thinking not to divide on that ground, it made him rather more inclined to divide, for fear that they should be giving way to a most unusual claim put forward in a matter of privilege, which was always somewhat difficult and delicate to determine. On the merits of the case he regarded his proposal as of the highest importance. The welfare of the communities was so closely bound up with a fair and intelligent administration of the Poor Law that they must do all that lay in their power to keep up the good sense of responsibility in regard to it. He hoped the Committee would accept the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that if they were discussing a Bill about the Poor Law itself he should almost certainly vote with the noble Lord, for there was a great deal to be said in favour of the change he proposed. But the Amendment, at the present time, hardly seemed to him germane to the Bill, which was simply a Bill creating Parish Councils.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): Is it perfectly certain that this is a matter we should be entitled to deal with? It has been recognised in this House more than once that where there is a provision for rates that it is contrary to privilege to deal with or alter the constitution of the body that disposes of the rates. That is the view maintained and submitted to by this House more than once. It is true that in this case, although you enable the new body to interfere with the disposition of the money it can never be by way of increase. Possibly that may make a difference, but I do not think it is perfectly clear.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I must demur to the statement that it had ever been admitted that it was contrary to privilege for this House to deal with such matters as these. Whether it was desirable to do this or not was a matter on which he felt he ought to submit to the judgment of the Scotch Members; but he did not think the House of Commons had any right, or the Lords would have any right, to bar the consideration of any clause by saying it was out of Order, or was not germane to the Bill. He could not
  1184
  imagine that if the Amendment were sent down it had any chance of life, although there was a great deal to be said for it. He was in the position of the fox in the fable who had lost his tail. They had already accepted the principle that those who did not pay the rates were to fix the amount of the rates to be paid by those who did, and that was the law of England at the present moment. It was proposed that Scotland should be exempted from that state of things, and he should be very glad if they should succeed. He confessed, however, he was not very sanguine of their being able to do so, and his own impression was that it was not worth while to challenge the decision of the House; but if a decision was challenged, he should certainly vote for the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN,though rather against putting forward the clause, did not think it open to the objection that it interfered with the rates, for it merely treated of the conditions under which the relief was to be given.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that as the noble Marquess opposite had pronounced the epitaph of the clause by saying it had no possible chance of acceptance in the other House, and although it was quite obvious that the question it raised of administration whilst important was not really relevant to the main object of the Bill, he did not think the noble Lord would wish to press the Amendment. It did seem to him that unless the noble Lord was anxious, like a knight of old, to challenge the House of Commons in his own person, for the mere pleasure of doing so, it was hardly worth while pressing the Amendment.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, the appeal of the Prime Minister was a very forcible one. He would point out that the Government had said absolutely nothing against the merits of the proposal, and he withdrew it now on the understanding that such withdrawal did not prejudice his action on any future occasion.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 23 agreed to.
  Clause 24.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN moved, in line 42, at beginning of Subsection (a) insert ("subject to the consent of the County Council"). He said, sis the sub-section stood it stated that the Parish Council might provide or acquire laud for building public offices and for meetings or other public purposes whatsoever. There was no limitation upon their powers, and there was nothing like this in the English Act. He proposed by his Amendment that the discretion of the Parish Council should be subject to the consent of the County Council. There was another Amendment down by the Marquess of Huntly, and he should be quite content if that were given effect to instead of his own; for while he had to distrust of the Parish Council, he thought that in one form or other it was necessary to have some means of controlling the Parish Council.
  Amendment moved, in line 42, at beginning of sub-section (a) insert ("subject to the consent of the County Council.")— (The Earl of Camper-down.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHadmitted the force of the argument as to the section going beyond the English Act. He thought, however, it would be better not to take the noble Lord's Amendment, as it might have the effect of bringing the County Council and the Parish Council into conflict, and ho thought of the two proposals it would be better to adopt the words of the noble Marquess.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY moved, in line 43, leave out ("other public purposes") and insert—
  ("And for any purposes connected with parish business, or with the powers or duties of the Parish Council.")
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY moved to omit Sub-section (c), which empowered the Parish Council to provide or acquire land for the erection of workmen's dwellings. This, he said, was a most dangerous power to put into the hands of the Parish Council, and was not germane in any way to the Bill. The Parish
  1186
  Council under this sub-section might acquire land, and then let it to a speculative builder, who would put "jerry" buildings upon it; and the Parish Council might continue such speculations as long as they kept within the rates. It was not advisable to deal with the question of workmen's dwellings by means of a sub-section in a Bill relating to au entirely different matter, and he begged to move the omission of the sub-section.
  Amendment moved, to leave out Sub-section (c).—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHasked the House to maintain the sub-section. He did not think it was a serious or revolutionary power to give to the Parish Council. After all, the Parish Council's powers were strictly limited by its borrowing powers, and the Scotch Local Government Board would also offer a useful check upon reckless or extravagant schemes. On the other hand, in many a parish where there was great difficulty for workmen or fishermen to get sites for cottages, the provision would be a great boon.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsincerely hoped the Committee would not pass the sub-section. It seemed to him a most dangerous thing to do, and this seemed to be admitted by Sir George Trevelyan in Committee, who said that if the Amendment were accepted the alterations required in the law would be much increased, and he could not accept the Amendment. That Amendment, however, in the Committee was carried against the Government. He objected to an abstract power of the kind being given when no machinery was provided. He did not agree that the borrowing powers furnished an adequate control. A Parish Council might buy a bit of land and re-sell it, and again with another bit of land, until they bought up a very large place.
  On question? whether sub-section (c) shall stand part of the clause,
  Their Lordships divided: —Contents 16; Not-Contents 38.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY moved, in line 29, leave out from ("Act") to the end of the sub-section. He said, this

  1187
  sub-section enabled the Parish Council to secure the enforcement of the Public Health Act. That was a wise power to give, and one he desired to see exercised, but the last part of the sub-section which contained the words he proposed to leave out would confer upon the Parish Council the powers which at the present moment were conferred on the Public Health Committee of the County Council. Thus there was given to a Parish Council, with a view to the due enforcement of the Public Health Acts, the same powers as were conferred upon a County Council by Sub-section 2 of Section 53 of the principal Act. The sub-section overrode the Public Health Committee of the County Council, and put the matter into the hands of the Parish Council. His objection to this was that the two bodies would be exercising the same powers, and that this might lead to friction.
  Amendment moved, in line 29, to leave out from ("Act") to the end of the subsection.—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, there was no intention of allowing the Parish Councils to override the County Councils in this matter. But the Parish Council was the body to whom the existence of nuisances and any violations of the Public Health Acts within the parish would be clearly brought home, and the clause merely gave that body power to approach the Local Government Board on the subject.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, the ground of his objection was that the Parish Council and the County Council would be doing the same thing. He would not, however, press the matter.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 25.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in line 37, after ("may,") insert ("if they think proper.") He said, this was a mere drafting Amendment. He supposed the promoters of the Bill wanted to give the County Council perfect option. But in one case they said "may make an order," putting in force &c, and then four lines lower down they said "if they think proper." Whichever form of words was adopted ought to be the same in both instances, for fear of misapprehension and difficulty arising.
  Amendment moved, in line 37, after ("may,") insert ("if they think proper.") —(The Lord, Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHwould prefer the second form ("if they think proper"), as that would be in strict conformity with the English Act.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLasked whether it was the fact that "may" had a compulsory meaning?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): I should say that, as a general rule, "may" gives discretion. It is only in certain circumstances that it is considered compulsory.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, that for the first time in any Act of Parliament affecting Scotland it was proposed to give this new Board supreme power, there being no provision for the revision in the Courts of Law of any of its decisions. He was quite aware that the words in the Bill were the same as in the English Act: but ho questioned the wisdom of following the precedent in that direction. He should prefer an arrangement by which an interested party who felt that the Board had acted ultra vires in any of its decisions should have the right to appeal to the Court of Sessions. He, therefore, hoped the Amendment he had on the Paper to that effect would be accepted.
  Amendment moved, in page 17, line 28, leave out from ("made,") to ("and,") in line 29.—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he was surprised at the quarter from which this Amendment came, because the sub-section which the noble Marquess proposed to leave out was part of some carefully adjusted words which were, in the case of a controversy between the two Houses on the English Act, the result of negotiations conducted between the noble Marquess's leader—the Duke of Devonshire —and the Government; and were by common consent inserted in the English Act. He hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would not make a new precedent in the Scotch Act, but would keep the Scotch Act on all-fours with the English Act. If the Board were not left the final decision in the matter the in-

  1189
  tention of Parliament would be frustrated.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, that perhaps the Government would accept his Amendment, raising the same point, which stood next on the Paper. The procedure proposed in that Amendment was well-known in Scotland, was extremely cheap and thoroughly effective. The proposal had been copied from the Educational Endowments Act which was passed by Parliament under the guidance of a Liberal Administration: and as he had been Chairman of the Commission that worked under that Act, he could tell the House that when the procedure was resorted to a decision was obtained at the expense of only a few pounds, and within a week. It seemed to him that the power which the Bill proposed to give to the Board was an extraordinary and dangerous power to give to a body which would really be controlled by the Secretary for Scotland, who was a political official; and which would be an interested party in some of the matters which would come before it for final decision. Why should the Board be given the power to interpret the Act in disputed cases when a simple and cheap procedure for obtaining the, opinion of the Court of Session, and satisfactory to everybody, could be provided? The noble Lord alluded to the proceedings on the English Act when this clause was passed, after a great deal of heated controversy. But he did not want to raise again those disputed questions. If the Government did not see their way to accept the Amendment before the Committee he hoped they would accept his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he preferred the moderate and wise proposal of Lord Balfour to the Amendment before the Committee, and he hoped the Government would accept it. He thought recourse would only be made to the proposed procedure in cases where it was believed that injustice had been done by the Board.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, the proviso standing in the name of Lord Balfour was less objectionable than the Amendment before the Committee. But it seemed strange to find Scotchmen expressing want of confidence in the Scotch Local Government Board
  1190
  which Englishmen had not expressed towards the English Board. [Cries of "We did!"]
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I expressed it in the strongest manner.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Your Lordships may have expressed it, but you did not act upon it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We did not wreck the Bill on account of it.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he thought that on matters of procedure the Scotch Act should run on all-fours with the English Act.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, the English Local Government Board was a well-known Board, with well-known traditions and a well-known policy. But here they were starting an entirely now Board for Scotland, in which he might toll the Lord Privy Seal he had no confidence at till. So far as the constitution of the Board was concerned, it was the worst that could be devised, and he did not think a good word could be said for it.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment in favour of the Amendment of Lord Balfour.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I think it exceptional that powers given by Statute to anybody should be substituted for the jurisdiction of the Courts of Law. It is contrary to the British Constitution. The words in the Bill make this new Board, which is absolutely under the control of the Secretary for Scotland, the supreme judge, whether it has or has not violated the law in the exercise of its power. The Queen's subjects have the right of appeal to the Courts of Law on questions whether the new powers given by Parliament to Bodies have been exorcised according to the Act.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Amendment moved, in page 17, line 30, at the end of Sub-section 7, insert—
  "Provided always that the Board may, and, when required by any party interested who has presented a Memorial against the Order, shall, state a special case on the question whether the proposed Order is within the powers conferred by this Act for the opinion of either divisions of the Court of Session who are

  1191
  hereby authorised finally to determine the same along with any question of expenses."—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to leave out "Board," in line 13, and insert "Sheriff of the County." The object of the Amendment was to secure that the arbitrators should be appointed by the Sheriff, who was a neutral person, and not by the Board, which was an interested party. He did not wish to pass Amendments offensive to the Government more than was absolutely necessary; and if this Amendment was objected to he would not press it.
  Amendment moved, in page 18, line 13, leave out "Board" and insert "Sheriff of the County."—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he did not need the assurance of the noble Lord that he would not press any Amendments offensive to the Government. He thought it would be necessary to keep in the word "Board," because it was in harmony with other precedents. In the Scotch Allotments Act it was the Secretary for Scotland who appointed the arbitrators, and lie thought it was better that the arbitrators should be appointed by an Administrative Body rather than by a judicial personage.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, there was a difference between the two cases. In the ease of the Allotments Act the Secretary for Scotland was not an interested party; but under this Bill he was the representative of one of the interested parties.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN*THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved to insert in the clause, as a new subsection—
  "The Parish Council shall make and maintain sufficient fences for separating the land taken, whether by purchase or on lease, from the lands not taken, and also all necessary drains of such dimensions as will be sufficient at all times to convey the water as clearly as before from the adjoining lands not taken; and also, in the event of existing watering places for cattle being interfered with, to make and maintain watering places equally suitable and convenient."
  If the Bill had not been compulsory he would not have moved such an Amend-
  1192
  ment. But when land was taken compulsorily it was only fair that no unnecessary expense or trouble should be placed on the shoulders of the owner from whom the land was taken away. It would be seen that his Amendment dealt with fences, drainage, and water supply. With regard to fences, the general—though not the universal—Scotch law was that boundary fences should be put up and maintained by the owners at each side. Under the Bill, however, it was not clear that fences were to be made and maintained by mutual expenditure; and in order to protect a landlord, who had some of his laud taken away, from the injustice of being at the sole expense of putting up the necessary fences, he proposed that that the Parish Council should make and maintain sufficient fences for separating the land taken from the land not taken. Then with regard to drainage, it might be that the drains of the entire field might run through the portion of the land taken away; and if those drains were interfered with, or were not kept up, the remaining portion of the field might become a swamp, without any power in the owner to remedy the defect except by consent of the Parish Council. With regard to the water supply for cattle, it was still more necessary that some protection should be given to the owner of the laud; because the portion of the field taken from him might be the portion that was best supplied with water. Nowadays it was extremely difficult to provide a water supply for lands. Landlords had often to provide water from a distance at great expense; and it was only fair, if au owner was deprived of his water supply with his land, that the Parish Council should provide another supply. For those reasons, he trusted that the Government would accept his Amendment.
  Amendment moved, in page 18, line 24, after ("compulsory") insert as a new sub-section—
  "The Parish Council shall make and maintain sufficent fences for separating the land taken, whether by purchase or on lease, from the lands not taken, and also all necessary drains of such dimensions as will be sufficient at all times to convey the water as clearly as before from the adjoining lands not taken; and also, in the event of existing watering places for cattle being interfered with, to make and maintain watering places equally suitable and convenient."—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, the Government could not accept the Amendment. In the first place, English Parish Councils were not required to make and maintain those fences; and ho did not think they should throw on the Scotch Parish Councils a burden the English Parish Councils were not asked to bear. With regard to the drainage question, he was advised that by the ordinary Common Law of Scotland the maintenance of necessary drains would be a servitude which would naturally go with the land, and that the Parish Council, therefore, would be bound to look after the drains. Again, if existing watering places for cattle were interfered with, it would be a damage by severance for which a remedy was provided by Scots law. That portion of the Amendment dealing with drainage and watering places, was, therefore, unnecessary.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, the remedy provided by Scots law for damage to water supply was by way of compensation only. That would not meet the difficulty, for money compensation would not make up for the loss of the water.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNcould not see why it was a hardship to make the Parish Councils fence their allotments. Supposing two acres of a six-acred field was taken by the Parish Council for allotment, and that the four acres remaining with the proprietor were in grass with a cow or two, or a bull, grazing on them, was the proprietor to be made liable for any damage done by the bull in the absence of fences when, if the proprietor had been left undisturbed in his land, the bull would have six acres fenced in on which to roam about quietly? Surely it would lie treating the proprietor harshly to compel him to fence the land that was taken from him by the Parish Council.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, the Government were willing to place on the Parish Council the duty of making sufficient fences for separating the land taken.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, that would not meet the difficulty. It seemed to him that unless there was also some provision for the mutual maintenance of the fences the obligation would rest solely on the owner from whom the land was taken.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I should think the natural person to maintain the fences would be the allotment holder and not the Parish Council or the proprietor.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I do not know what the Scots law may be; but in England the occupier has to make and maintain the fences.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Scots law is different. It provides for the mutual making and maintenance of fences. I do not think I can accept the noble Lord's proposal as sufficient.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, the words of the Amendment were taken from the Railways Act. It was first suggested that the clause of the. Railways Act, covering those matters, should be inserted in the Bill; but it having been pointed out that those clauses were cumbrous, it was decided by a few of their Lordships who had considered the subject to draft from those clauses a short sub-section which would meet the merits of the case. That subsection was the Amendment before the Committee; and he thought its insertion, in the Bill was very desirable and very, just.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I am: advised that the questions of drainage and water supply are already met by the Common Law of Scotland. I think there is a grievance with reference to the making and maintenance of fences, and that the Earl of Camperdown's amusing apologue of the bull has some foundation for it. Would the noble Marquess drop the portion of his Amendment which deals with drains and water supply, and. take such words as these—
  "The Parish Council shall make and maintain jointly with the proprietor sufficient fences for separating the land taken,"
  &c.? If so, Ave will agree to them.
  THE MARCHESS OF LOTHIAN: I will accept the words if they run in this way—
  "The Parish Council shall make and shall; jointly with the proprietor maintain sufficient fences.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Yes; the idea is that the Parish Council shall make the fences and maintain them jointly with the proprietor.
  Amendment moved, in page 18, line 24, after ("compulsory") insert, as a new sub-section—

  1195
  "The Parish Council shall make, and shall jointly with the proprietor maintain sufficient fences for separating the land taken, whether by purchase or on lease, from the lands not taken."—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved, in page 18, line 40, after ("purchasing") insert "the whole or any part of.")—(The Lord Bafour of Burleigh.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH*LORD TWEEDMOUTH moved to amend the clause by excluding from its operation any land which in the opinion of the County Council or Board is being held and may be required for the extention of a factory or public work.
  Amendment moved, in page 19, line 2, after ("undertaking") insert—
  ("or any land which in the opinion of the County Council or Board is being held and may be required for the extension of a factory or public work.")—(The Lord Tweedmouth.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsuggested the substitution of "or" for "and" in the phrase "is being held and may be required," with a view to enlarge the scope of the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked why land for the extension of a factory only should be excepted from the operation of the clause? He did not see why land attached to a shop should not also be excepted. Then he would like to know the meaning of "public work." In Scotland a "public work" was a work that had nothing to do with the public; it was a work that belonged to a private manufacture. He suggested the words "any other commercial undertaking" instead of "public work."
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he could not consent to the change of "and" for "or," as it would make two conditions against the taking of such land. What the Government wanted to exclude from the operation of the clause was land that was immediately required, and not land that might be required 20 years hence. He also thought it would be dangerous to extend the Amendment to commercial undertakings. It was difficult to say what was not a commercial undertaking in those days.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Do you propose to take land that is behind a shop?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Yes; if it is not required for the purposes of the shop.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 26.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANasked for a definition of the words "near the parish," in line 24. If the Parish Council had power to take land for allotments "near the parish" it might mean that they could go roaming all over the country side looking for land.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I should think the words mean "contiguous to the parish."
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, the Bill as it stood provided that the Parish Council might permit to be erected on an allotment any stable, byre, or barn, and give the allotment holder compensation for such buildings at the end of the tenancy. He proposed to amend that provision by adding the words—
  "but such stable, byre, or barn, shall not, unless erected with the assent in writing of the landlord, be the subject of compensation, but may be removed by the tenant on the determination of the tenancy."
  In the case of a small allotment, a stable, byre, or barn which the allotment holder might erect on the land would be useless to him; and vet the clause said that he must pay the compensation for it when the tenancy came to an end. That was distinctly in the teeth of the Agricultural Holdings Act, which provided that no building was to form the subject of compensation unless the building had been erected with the assent in writing of the landlord. His Amendment, therefore, declared, in the first place, that the owner should not be required to pay unless he gave his assent to the building in writing. In the next place, his Amendment sought to remove a possible hardship to the tenant. A man might put up a stable on his allotment, and it was hard to say that at the end of the tenancy that stable belonged to the landlord. He thought it was only fair to allow the tenant to remove the building if he could.
  Amendment moved, in page 20, line 31, after ("barn") insert—

  1197
  ("but such stable, byre, or barn, shall not, unless erected with the assent in writing of the landlord, be the subject of compensation, but may be removed by the tenant on the determination of the tenancy.")—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had spoken very frequently of the virtues of the English Act. Well, the equivalent of the clause in the English Act specially provided that when an allotment holder claimed compensation for buildings the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act should be strictly followed in settling the claim. He therefore hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I think the words are harmless, and an improvement to the clause. I therefore accept them.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I have not given notice of any Amendment, and perhaps I have no right to press the point I am about to raise. But I desire to direct attention to the effect—I think the unforeseen effect—of the words at the end of the 8th sub-section of the clause. They provide that no land shall be taken on lease which is already occupied or owned by small holders within the meaning of the Small Holdings Act, 1892. That is quite reasonable. The object of Parliament is to increase the number of small holders; and it would be inconsistent with the intentions of Parliament and with public feeling to arbitrarily interfere with those who have already got small holdings. But the sub-section goes on—
  "or under the Crofters' Holdings Act, 1886, or any Act amending the same."
  That places it, absolutely out of the power of the County Council, or the Parish Council, to take for allotments or small holdings land held by crofters. That provision would be reasonable if crofters were small holders, but they are not; they are quite different. In the West of Scotland there are large tracts of pasture land, oftentimes including the whole side of the country—a townland, as it is called in Ireland, or a township as it is known in Scotland—occupied by crofters which is very suitable for allotments, but which the Parish Council will not be authorised to take if this provision
  1198
  remains in the Bill. I will give the Committee an illustration. I own an island, which is largely populated by crofters. A large part of the island—I think 10,000 acres, including a large part of the sea-shore—is used by the crofters in common; and not a single acre of that large tract of country will be available for small allotments for the labouring classes if those words are allowed to stand in the Bill. Beside the crofters there are on this island cottiers who are also fishermen. They often apply to me for small possessions, but I cannot comply with their request, because under the Crofters' Act I cannot deprive the crofters of any of their possessions. I would, therefore, suggest the omission of the words—
  "or under the Crofters' Holdings Act, 1886, or any Act amending the same,"
  in order to allow the Local Bodies to give small possessions to labourers or fishers, when they ask for them, out of the pasture lands held by the crofters.
  Lord TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he could not agree offhand to the omission of the words suggested by the noble Duke: but, speaking for himself, he thought there could be no objection to some method being devised whereby pasture land held by crofters which was suitable for allotments might be made available for that purpose. But he did not think it would be wise to allow arable land on a crofter's holding to be broken up for allotments. He would consider the matter before the Report stage, and endeavour to find some method of meeting the difficulty.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he agreed with the noble Lord that the restriction should apply to arable land, but thought the pasture land of the character he had described should be available for allotments. He was satisfied with the promise of the noble Lord, and would not press the matter further.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to amend the sub-section which reserves the rights of the landlord with respect to lands for working and winning mines, minerals, or surface minerals thereunder by including "feuing." Constant complaints were made that there was great difficulty in the community getting land for feuing round some of the populous places of Scotland, and he rather feared that the clause as it stood

  1199
  would create further difficulty. In addition to that, he thought the clause in itself was unjust. The time for which land might be taken for allotments was extended to 35 years. Anyone who could look back for 35 years could appreciate what the effect of this provision, if it then existed, would have been on certain communities that had greatly extended within that time; and it seemed to him that this was a matter in which they might legitimately draw guidance from the experience of the past. He did not think that the English Bill was a fair precedent in this case as the system of feuing was unknown in England; and as really no injustice would be done by his Amendment he hoped it would be accepted.
  Amendment moved, in page 21, line 16, after ("thereunder") insert ("for feuing").—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHthought the noble Lord was introducing into the section a matter to which it had no reference whatever. The section referred purely to mineral rights and the working of mineral rights below the surface by retaining the use of those rights to the landlord. He did not think the Government could assent to the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLpointed out that under the Crofters' Act the landlord had power to resume possession of bind for feuing, and he thought a similar power should be given in this Bill. The matter was very important. Land on the Western Coast of Scotland which a few years ago had little value had greatly improved in value for feuing purposes owing to the desire of large and increasing numbers of residents in the large towns of Scotland to spend a portion of the year by the sea. Yet the clause would deprive the landlord of the value of his property in that respect for 35 years. Ho thought that unreasonable and quite unnecessary for the purposes of allotment. It was all very well to say that the clause dealt with a different matter. Ho did not see why the subsection should not be made to include other rights of property as well as mineral rights. Over a large portion of Scotland there were no valuable minerals—no coal mines and no metalliferous mines; and therefore the clause gave no
  1200
  benefit to landowners, while it denied him the benefit of being able to resume possession of his land for building, purposes.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that if the clause were not amended they would have in the immediate vicinity of a large town the Parish Council taking land for the purposes of allotments and preventing the owner from making any better use of the land, and that state of things might go on for ever.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Motion of Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  Line 17, after ("winning"), insert ("or feuing").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to.
  On Motion of Lord TWEEDMOUTH, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Page 23, line 13, leave out ("of such roads or ways").
  Line 15, leave out ("such road or way") and insert ("any such way").
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHasked what was the meaning of "public way" in the clause? The language was not known in the Scots' law, and there was no definition of it in the Definition Clause.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, the definition of "public way" was really given at the beginning of the clause. It said—
  "Not being highways or footpaths at the side of a highway within the meaning of the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878."
  The particular public ways referred to were such as the not very well kept ways over moors used by children going and coming from school. It was a good thing to enable the Parish Councils to look after those ways; but if the noble Lord thought it was necessary that there should be an absolute definition of "public ways," the Government would be quite ready to insert such a definition in the Definition Clause.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, he did not doubt that the object was excellent; but he doubted whether the way proposed in the Bill was the

  1201
  legal way to carry out that object. However, if the noble Lord's advisers said it was all right, and that there would be no dispute about it, he had no more to say.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: We do not think there will be any dispute.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 30.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, this was one of the most extraordinary clauses he ever saw, and it was a case in which the English Act would not help the noble Lord in charge of the Bill at all. There was no limitation in the clause, and he was advised that it would be technically possible for the Parish Council to appoint additional trustees to assist the trustees already appointed under a marriage settlement. For instance, a modest amount of his means was in marriage settlements, which were managed by trustees for the benefit of himself, his wife, and his children, who were, of course, inhabitants of the parish in which they resided. The clause said—
  "When trustees hold any property wholly or mainly for the benefit of the inhabitants of a single parish or any of them;"
  and he was advised that under those words it would be quite possible for the Parish Council to appoint additional trustees to help his trustees to manage his marriage settlements. He, therefore, moved the insertion of the words "as such inhabitants," so that the clause would read—
  "When trustees hold any property wholly or mainly for the benefit of inhabitants of a single parish or any of them as such inhabitants," &c.
  Amendment moved, in page 23, line 17, after ("them,") insert ("as such inhabitants.")—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I have no objection to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY moved an Amendment to Sub-section 2 of the Clause, providing that in the event of a charitable bequest to the parish the number of additional persons that the Parish Council might appoint under the powers of the clause to act along with the trustees of the property, should "not
  1202
  exceed the number of such trustees." He pointed out that the object of the Amendment was to prevent the Parish Council from swamping the existing trustees.
  Amendment moved, in page 23, line 34r after ("persons,") insert ("not exceeding the number of such trustees ").—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHhoped the Amendment would be accepted, because in Scotland they were not in the same position as they were in England. This clause was one of the most contentions clauses in the English Act; and by way of compromise an Amendment was inserted to put certain powers into the hands of the Charity Commissioners. There was no body analogous to the Charity Commissioners in England, and he was not prepared to accept the Local Government Board, controlled by the Secretary for Scotland for the time being, as an equivalent.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHthought it was rather hard that the inhabitants of Scottish parishes should not be allowed to exercise a similar discretion in regard to the appointment of trustees as the inhabitants of English parishes, simply because the noble Lord had not confidence in the Scotch Local Government Board. He did not think it was the least likely that any Secretary for Scotland would sanction a scheme which would create injustice in the administration of charities in any particular parish.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The power given to the Parish Council was wider than in the English Act. He asked if it was wise or fair to pass a clause which had this effect: that no human being could give£500 to his nearest friend for the benefit of the inhabitants of a parish without the Parish Council coming in and putting trustees over their head? It seemed to him bad in policy and certain to dry up other sources of benefactions. For that reason he must ask the Committee seriously to consider whether they should not have not only this Amendment, but the other one giving them the same limit as in the English Act—namely, 40 years.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, he preferred his own words to those proposed by the noble Lord.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I will take the Noble Marquess's words.
  On question? their Lordships divided:—Couteuts 34; Not Contents 17.
  On Motion of The Earl of CAMPERDOWN, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  Page 23, line 35, after ("property") insert—
  ("as the trustees and the Parish Council may agree on in default of such agreement").
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The next Amendment I suppose the Government will treat as the last—dealing with the number of trustees.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Yes, it is consequential.
  On Motion of Lord TWEEDMOUTH, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Page 24, line 9, after ("persons") insert ("not exceeding three").
  Page 24, line 21, after the second ("shall") insert ("hold office until his successor is appointed and shall").
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The next Amendment consists of words quoted exactly from the English Act, which has been often appealed to this evening—I mean the words down to "surviving donor or donors." The other words are so obviously suited to the circumstances of Scotland that until I hear that it is so I shall not believe that this Amendment will not be accepted.
  Amendment moved, in page 25, at the end of the clause, insert the following:—
  "The provisions of this section with respect to the appointment of trustees shall not apply to any charity until the expiration of 40 years from the date of the foundation thereof, or, in the case of a charity founded before the passing of this Act by a donor, or by several donors, any one of whom is living at the passing of this Act, until the expiration of 40 years from the passing of this Act, unless with the consent of the surviving donor or donors. Nothing contained in this section shall apply to the funds derived from the ordinary church collections in parish churches, but such funds shall belong to and be at the disposal of the Kirk Session of each parish, and the portion of the same to lie applied in relief of the poor shall be in the discretion of the Kirk Session."—{The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: As to the first part of the Amendment, I should be inclined to make him an appeal. He has been a distinguished member of the Commission which has had to work the
  1204
  Endowment Act of 1882. In that Act the limit of 10 years was put in, and a great many schemes have been dealt with under that condition. What I would suggest is that we should follow the precedent of the Endowment Act of 1882, and put in 10 years here. If he would consent to that I would accept the Amendment.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: Ten years for the past—nothing for the future?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: For the past.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The Act the noble Lord mentions undoubtedly did refer back from 1882 to 1872, but there was a special reason for that—namely, that in 1872 a very large change had been made in the educational arrangements of Scotland; therefore there was a special reason for coming down to 1872; but when that was done great care was taken to hedge round any change in administration or in the number of trustees. We were successfully appealed against more than once for having gone beyond the terms even of that limitation. But that Act is no precedent for what is asked for now, for this clause not only deals with endowments that have been given, but endowments that may be given. The modest request of the clause is that the section shall not apply to charities until the expiration of 40 years from the date of the foundation.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I will take 10 years both ways.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am sorry I cannot accept that. I must stand to the terms of the clause. This clause is word for word the clause of the English Act passed at the end of last Session. We have had appeal after appeal to the terms of the English Act as binding on us. In some cases, such as allotments and soon, we have given in to it, but we cannot allow this Act to be pleaded against us when it is against us and disregarded when it is in our favour. On the merits this is so fair that I hope the Committee will agree to the clause. The second part of it will be taken afterwards.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: Would it not be well to divide against both together?
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I had hoped that the Government would not divide against the second part of the clause. There is a Statute enacting that there shall he a weekly collection at the church doors in Scotland for the poor. The practice is a very old one, and is no doubt alluded to in various Acts of Parliament. There is a reference to it as an existing practice in an Act of 1672 and in a Proclamation of the Privy Council of 1693. That Proclamation has not been strictly adhered to, and under the Poor Law Act of 1845 there was a good deal of litigation on this matter. The Act of 1845 put the whole circumstances of the case on a different footing, and though it disfranchised the Kirk Session as those who had special charge of the poor along with the heritors, it gave the Kirk Session representation on the Parochial Board. It is proposed to do away with that. I accept it, but surely if you are going to do away with our representation you are not going to keep our money. You certainly do seem to me to be treating the Church with an extremely scant amount of courtesy and fairness. I am not contending that the representation should be maintained. I would not desire that it should be under all the new circumstances that are being brought in. But it docs seem to me unfair to change a thing when it is for our disadvantage and not to give us a corresponding advantage. I am certain that if that is not done there will he a great deal of bitter litigation on the subject, and for the sake of that it is desirable that we should settle the matter once for all. There is no intention—and I think I am entitled to speak on that—on the part of the Church of Scotland or its Kirk Sessions to do anything which is unfair, but the clause in the Bill takes away every endowment we hold for the poor, and apparently you would prevent us from devoting part of our Church collections for the poor without the intervention of a Public Authority. That seems to me most unfair, and I hope that even at this late stage the Government will reconsider their decision.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he did not think the noble Lord need be under any fear that they would have any of these church-door collections to dispose of under any circumstances. It was only
  1206
  a small amount of the collections which wont to the poor. It seemed to him that the second sub-section came under the head of change in the administration of the Poor Law, and that, therefore, the objection previously raised applied to it.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, that nothing had ever astonished him more than the answer which had just been given. He would remind noble Lords that one of the ways in which the revenues of the Church of Scotland were raised was by Church-door collections. They were advised that the law was uncertain, and that if this clause was not inserted there would be litigation, and perhaps bitter litigation. He thought his case so fair and reasonable that he believed the Government would have raised no objection to it. He was surprised that the Government should oppose that which was designed in a simple way to set right what would cause a great deal of dispeace and bad feeling.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that what it came to was, that if they belonged to anybody except the Established Church they might collect as much money at the doors as they liked without being interfered with, but that if they belonged to the Established Church the money so collected would be taken away from them.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, there was nothing unintelligible in that, so long as it was an Established Church. The doctrine was that all the parishioners were entitled to the benefits of the Church's administration of money. He knew nothing about Church collections, but he could not accept the doctrine of the noble Earl that the Established Church was in respect of its funds in the same position as any other Church.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLprotested against such doctrine being applied to Church-door collections, which were purely a congregational fund. They might just as well say that they could appropriate to some parochial object all the offertories in the Established Church of England. This Church-door collection in Scotland was strictly an ecclesiastical fund. Possibly when the Church represented everybody in the parish, it was for certain purposes a public fund, but it was now strictly a congregation fund. He had had no

  1207
  notion that this Bill contemplated the confiscation of this fund or the submitting of the management of it to any other than the members of the Church.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)explained that he had assumed that the Amendment referred to funds which, though collected at the Church door, were in some way held on trust for the parish; otherwise, they did not come within the clause at all. What was the use of putting in the section if it did not apply to these funds?
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked if it was certain that these funds were not held by a trust? Was not the minister in Kirk Session in each parish the trustee?
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, that these collections were funded for the year, and were given at the end of the year in clothes, coal, and other necessaries to the poor who were not paupers. The clause in the Bill was so very wide that they ran a serious risk of having the law more against them than they had at present.
  LORRD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, the noble Lord proposed to solve a doubt in the law in his own way. He (Lord Tweedmouth) did not think that was quite fair. What, he was prepared to do was to insert words to keep things as they were—namely, that nothing in this section or in this Act should affect existing rights.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, that upon that understanding, and subject to the consideration of the proposed words, he would withdraw the second paragraph of his Amendment.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 36; Not-Contents 16.
  Amendment moved, in page 26, line 33, leave out from the first "the" to "Board" in line 34.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in page 30, line 41, at the end of Sub-section 3, insert—
  "Within 10 days after the date of such resolution it shall be competent for any person interested to appeal against the resolution in so far as it defines the boundaries of such special district to the Sheriff, and the Sheriff being the Sheriff Depute of the county may enlarge or limit the special district as defined by the district committee, and the decision of the Sheriff shall be final."
  Will the noble Lord opposite accept the Amendment?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: No; I think it better that the Administrative Board should decide the matter rather than a judicial officer.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, that interference with private property was involved, and he did not think the proposal was very drastic. However, if the noble Lord would not accept the Amendment he would not press it further.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved the deletion of Clause 46, which, he said, gave additional drastic power to the Secretary for Scotland to alter parish areas. Most important questions, including valuation, depended upon parish boundaries, and it seemed to him that the clause placed a great deal too much power in the hands of an Executive Board. It gave the Secretary for Scotland power to unite parishes and alter boundaries. There was existing machinery in the County Council Act of 1889 which provided that in the ease of serious opposition there should be an appeal. The clause was objected to by several large communities.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 46.—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh).
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he was afraid he could not accept the proposal. One of the great difficulties they had was to name some ready or easy method for the adjustment of areas, and that stood in the way of the success of this Bill. The idea of going back to the cumbrous system of Provisional Orders seemed to him to be entirely out of the question. These were powers which were well administered by the Local Government Board in England, and they must insist on the power being given to the Secretary for Scotland, as the Bill proposed.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that under this clause the Secretary for Scotland would have very large powers indeed, and to him it appeared that the balance of advantage was with the clause. Unless these powers were conferred on the Secretary for

  1209
  Scotland the power of altering areas would be practically inoperative altogether. This power had existed under Clause 51 of the Local Government Act, and it had scarcely ever been attempted to put it in force, the real reason of that being the expense attendant upon obtaining a Provisional Order. Just see what might happen. In the case of a parish in the neighbourhood of a large town if there was any proposal to alter the area it could not be carried out without a very expensive appeal to Parliament. If this power extended to matters Parliamentary he certainly would not give such power to the Secretary for Scotland. Parliamentary and ecclesiastical matters were withheld from the clause. There was a reference in the last line but one to Sections 95 and 96 of the principal Act. Therefore, as it simply related to local matters, on the whole he thought it better to take the cheaper and more efficient course.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  On Motion of Lord TWEEDMOUTH, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Page 34, line 23, leave out ("eleventh day of December"), and insert ("fifteenth day of May in the year").
  Line 24, leave out ("ninety-four"), and insert ("ninety-five").
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY moved the following proviso:—
  "Provided that in the case of the medical officers holding office under this Act and the former Acts, any arrangement as to their duties and remuneration shall be subject to the approval of the Local Government Board."
  He thought those who had had experience of local matters in Scotland knew that it was necessary in some way to protect medical officers from dismissal without some appeal. Ho had known cases where injustice had been done owing to local feeling, and it was necessary that there should be some appeal against the decision of the Parish Council. In the case of medical officers under the Board of Supervision there was an appeal at the present moment, he believed. He desired to make a verbal alteration in the Amendment—namely, to
  1210
  substitute the word "resolution" for "arrangement."
  Amendment moved, in page 34, line 38, after ("passed") insert—
  ("Provided that in the case of the medical officers holding office under this Act and the former Acts, any resolution as to their duties and remuneration shall be subject to the approval of the Local Government Board.")
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he did not think there was any great objection to the Amendment, though he did not quite like the form of it. He should prefer words to the effect that any rearrangement of the duties and remuneration of a medical officer holding office under the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, should be subjected to the approval of the Board.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: Does that give an appeal in case of dismissal?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: That is equally outside the noble Marquess's Amendment and mine.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY: Not with the word "resolution."
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: I prefer my own words.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  On Motion of Lord TWEEDMOUTH the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  Page 34, line 38, after "passed," insert—
  "Provided that any rearrangement of the duties and remuneration of the existing medical officers holding office under the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, shall be subject to the approval of the Local Government Board."
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved to add to the clause a proviso to the effect that in all matters relating to the Poor Law administration the Inspector of Poor should act as clerk to the Parish Council. The Inspectors of the Poor were well known in Scotland, and it was acknowledged that they discharged their onerous and difficult duties with a great deal of tact and efficiency. Under some clauses of the Bill they were being rather hardly treated. He would not go the length of some of their number and propose that in all cases they should act as clerk to the Parish Council. He would not advocate that, but it seemed to him that in matters so strictly within their province as the administration of the poor if they were not made clerks to the

  1211
  Parish Council a great deal of difficulty and friction would take place. They would have two officers where one would do, certainly in all rural parishes.
  Amendment moved, in page 35, line 2, after ("Council"), insert—
  ("Provided always that in all matters relating to the Poor Law administration, the Inspector of Poor shall act as clerk to the Parish Council.")—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHthought the Amendment would fetter too much the power of the Parish Council. The Parish Council should have the right to select their own clerk, and his Amendment would secure the existing officer from any hardship or grievance. He would propose to amend the clause by providing that—
  "If any existing Inspector of Poor is aggrieved by such distribution of business, or by the imposition or withdrawal of any duties, he may within one month after the date of any resolution of the Council distributing such business, or imposing or withdrawing such duties, appeal to the Board, whose decision shall be final."
  He believed that those words would amply secure the existing officers from any hardship or grievance.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, the administration of the Poor Law was very technical, and in some respects a difficult matter. His proposal, if carried out, would be greatly valued by the Inspectors of the Poor themselves. In the position of clerk they would be able to advise the Parish Councils and give those bodies the benefit of their experience and knowledge of Poor Law administration. No doubt the Government were supreme in this matter, and if the Amendment were inserted here, if the Government were hostile to it, it would be rejected elsewhere. He put it on the grounds of equity to the Inspectors and efficiency in the administration of the law.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, he was afraid he must persist in his objection.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that no doubt under the Amendment of Lord Balfour of Burleigh the Poor Law would be administered in the most efficient manner. It stood to reason that the Inspector of the Poor would be the best clerk for dealing with Poor Law matters. If anyone else were appointed the first thing he would have to
  1212
  do would be to set to work to learn the Poor Law. At the same time, the Government proposal would give the Inspector of the Poor an appeal if he felt himself aggrieved.
  Amendment negatived.
  on Motion of Lord TWEEDMOUTH the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  Page 35, line 2, after ("Council") insert—
  ("Provided that if any existing Inspector of Poor is aggrieved by such distribution of business, or by the imposition or withdrawal of any duties, he may, within one month after the date of any resolution of the Council distributing such business or imposing or withdrawing such duties, appeal to the Board, whose decision shall be final.")
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved an Amendment to add the following words at the end of the clause:—
  "Provided always that, on the retirement of an Inspector of Poor, the Parish Council may, with the consent of the Board, grant to such Inspector a superannuation allowance not exceeding two-thirds of his existing salary and emoluments."
  The Poor Law officers in England and Ireland were entitled to superannuation, and it was not fair or just that the Poor Law officers in Scotland should be debarred from the privilege. That they were so debarred had long been felt by them to be a real grievance, and especially so now, when they entertained a strong feeling that their positions would be unfavourably affected by this Bill. He asked for no special or exceptional treatment on behalf of the Poor Law officers of Scotland, but simply that their claims in this matter might be impartially considered.
  Amendment moved, in page 35, line 11, at end of clause, insert—
  ("Provided always that, on the retirement of an Inspector of Poor, the Parish Council may, with the consent of the Board, grant to such Inspector a superannuation allowance not exceeding two-thirds of his existing salary and emoluments.")—(The Lord Bulfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid, this was an Amendment dealing with money. The Leader of the Opposition had given the House some advice as to (heir action in regard to matters arising out of the rates, and besides, the Amendment was ruled out of Order by the Speaker of the House of Commons as not coming

  1213
  within the scope of the Bill. Moreover, when that Amendment was divided upon in the Scotch Grand Committee only 13 voted in its favour, while 43 voted against it. It could hardly be said, therefore, that there was a very strong feeling in favour of introducing the proposal in this Bill. He thought it would he undesirable, in the interests of the officers themselves as well as in those of the Parish Councils, to press the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  On Motion of Lord TWEEDMOUTH the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Clause 54 amended, so as to provide that the expression "Town Clerk" includes the clerk to the Burgh Commissioners of a police burgh.
  Page 37, at the end of clause, insert—
  ("the expression 'district committee of a County' Council shall include a County Council sitting as a district committee under Sub-sect ion 3 of Section 78 of the principal Act")
  Page 40, line 25, insert—

  52 & 53 Vict. c. 50.

  Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889.

  Section twenty-eight Sub-section (2). (i)', the words "who is not married, or who being married is not living in family with her husband,"

  The commencement of this Act.

  14 Vict. c. 13.

  Municipal Elections Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1881.

  Section two, the words "who are not married, and married females not living in family with their husbands."

  Other Amendments agreed to.
  On Motion of Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH, Clause 55 was amended, in order to provide that
  1214
  ("the expression 'district committee of a County Council' shall include a County Council sitting as a district committee under Sub-section 3 of Section 78 of the principal Act."
  THE MARQUESS of LOTHIANasked when the remaining stages of the Bill would be taken?
  LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid that, if the Report stage and the Third Beading were taken to-morrow, the Bill could lie sent to the Commons and then dealt with in the Lords again on Monday.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 212.)

  CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) (BRIDGE-WATER, &.C. CANALS) BILL.—(No. 185.)
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 9) (CANALS OF CALEDONIAN AND NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY COMPANIES) BILL—(No. 190.)
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 11) (GRAND CANAL, & C.) BILL.—(No. 191.)
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]—(No. 178.)
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
  QUARRIES BILL [H.L.]—(No. 149.)
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments to he considered To-morrow.
  TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered (according to Order), and agreed to.
  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 11.) (LAGAN, &c CANALS) BILL, now CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10.) (LAGAN, &c. CANALS) BILL. (No. 197.)
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) (BIRMINGHAM CANAL) BILL.—(No. 198.)
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) (RIVER LEE, &c.) BILL.—(No. 211.)
  Moved, That the Order made on the 19th day of March last,
  "That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 26th day of June next,"
  be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  HERITABLE SECURITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 202.)
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment; Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) BILL.
  Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow. (No. 215.)
  JURIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow. (No. 216.)
  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow. (No. 217.)
  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC BILL.
  Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a To-morrow. (No. 218.)

  PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered (on Motion), and agreed to.
  House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, Three o'clock.